The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApril 19, 2000 St. Lucie .County .Board of County Commissioners Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting Roger Poitras Administration Annex Building. County CommisSion Chambers April 19, 2000 6:00 P.M. CALL TQ QRDER: .AGENDA A. Pledge of Allegiance B, Roll Call C. Announcements D. Disclosures AGENDA'ITEM 1; !NTER(~QV, ERNMENTAL C, QORDINAT!QN EI,EMENT Consider Intergovernmental Coordination of the St. Lucie.County Comprehensive Plan. Action Recommended: Approval Exhibit #1' staff Report AGENDA ITEM 2:-RE(~REATIQN AND ~QPEN SPACE ELEMENT · · Consider Recreation and Open Space Element of the St. Lhcie-County Comprehensive Plan.. · Action Recommended: Approval · Exhibit #2: Staff.Report OTHER BUSINESS: Other business at COmmission Members' discretion. ADJOURN NOTICE: All proceedings before the St. Luci. e Board of County Commissioners, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board oiY County Commissioners with respect to any matter co .nsidered at such meetin~ or hearing, he Will need ~ record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence up~)i~ which the appeal is based. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals .testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the. proceeding will be granted an opp°rtunity to cross examine any i~di~/idual testifying during a hearing upon request. ST. LUCIE COUNTY INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION INTRODUCTION The purpose of the intergovernmental Coordination Element, as.identified by Chapter !63, F.~S,, and Rule 9J-5~015, F,A.C., is to "identify and resolve incompatible' goals, objectives, and policies, and develop-ment proposed in comprehensive plans and to determine and respond tothe needs for coordination processes and procedures with adjacent local, regional, and state agencies." St. Lucie County believes that a well-developed communication ~netwo'rk among all applicable public and quasi-public entities will enhance the long--range growth and prosperity of the County. St. Lucie County is ~governed by an. elected Board-of five Commissioners with an appointed County Administrator. There are t. hree (3) independent, municipalities within the County' Ft. Pierce, Port 'St. Lucie, and St. Lucie Village. Each of these municipalities has a strong council form of government. The cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie inClude an elected mayoral position in the composition of their council. St. Lucie Village appoints a mayoral position from the eleCted council, men (aldermen). The cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie each have an appointed' City Manager.. ~ ¢,o,,, ~!~~ Census population of ~iii~~ ~, Port Ft. Pierce, the..C-ounty seat, had a , ~u,-, ............... . ............................. : .................. St. Lucie, St. LuCie Villa with the remainder of the County at Between ation of the unincorporated areas of the County increased to (Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research) ~:~:~.. ~.' ;~ ,o. However, the population for the County as a whole increased over the ~ggO ~:'''~ .................... ~,oo.~°~ ...... figures dunng th~s same period..-The prima~ influence on that growth rate wa~;'"i~'$ City oi Port St. Lucie, increasing by over ~~ ~ of its ::~{~ .1980- opulation to a total' of Ft. Pierce indicated ~~;14% increase to and St. Lucie Village a increase to ~ ~. This rapid growth makes it essential that close cooperation be maintained among the incorporated municipalities and the unincorporated County, as well as with surrounding governments. INVENTORY There are numerous independent governmental agencies which affect the quality of life in St. Lucie County. Table 10-1 provides an identification of all the public and-quasi-public entities with which either the County does, or needs to coordinate. Table 10-1 also indicates a relationship of.the various components of the Comprehensive Plan with each appropriate agency. April 18, 2000 10-1 Intergovernmental Table 10-1 Existing and Proposed Coordination Links ~ecma_tion Capital Transportation .~0~q. rdinating=nmy re Land Housing Infrastructure Coastal Consemti°n= upen upace ImprOvements Ft Pierce X X X X X X X X Port St. Lucie ' X X , X X X X X X .S. I,. Lucie X X XX X X X vmage . ~ X ' i Indian River X i X X X X X · Martin i X X X X r i i . Okeechobee X X X X X X ! i i , i i TCRPC X' = ' ' X 'X X X X X X SFWMD ' ' ' ...... X X X X ' X X X '[reasure X X X X X X X X COast COG i ~..~oo, . x x ~ x X X X ........~rict i ~!.'.c F~re ' X X X ' umtrict X '/' ii Mos~uit° x x x : c0nt ol U.~using x r.~nance . . i i i MP° x x x ~"~WCD~ X ' ' . . X X NSLRWCD ...... X X X i i i i i i i i ' ~1 i FDOT ' X X X X ~ ' i i i i i i DEP X X X X X ' ii ~ ii DCA X X X X X X X X HRS ~X i X X X ' ! , i ' i FF&W i x X i ' k i i BEBR ~ X X X X "' ' i ii i i Hesources i i i ii x EPA × X FHWA X X UMPTA X FPUA X ii PSL X X ,.~:~"L x x i i SO Bell ' X X i i i i i ' [ i The following paragraphs provide a brief description of the various agencies, authorities, boards and organizations that St. Lucie County must coordinate with on a frequent or daily basis. St. Lucie County ~ SchoOl DiStrict.. , .. ~..o*--..-...... .. The St. Lucie-County l~d~e.School'Oi~tri~t S';stem is an autonomous board established under Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. The district school system is controlled by an elected five (5) member School Board supported with an .appointed superintendent. Each School Board member represents the specific district in which they live, however, they are elected throUgh the at-large voting practice. Traditionally the School Board and its staff, and the elected county officials and their staff, along with those of the various municipalities have worked clOsely in facility and project planning. Examples of these coordinated efforts include the implementation of voluntary school impact assessment for new residential developments in the early 1980's, the location of new 'school sites 'in the most rapidly growing areas of the community and the development:of a County-wide mandatory School Impact Fee Ordinance (1988). South Florida Water Management District In 1949, the Florida Legislature created the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, whose charge, among other activities, was to regulate the problem of seasonal flooding from a regional perspective, in 1976, the Florida Legislature consolidated the various drainage and floOd control districts throughout the State into five. St. Lucie County, then a member of the Central and Southern, became a part of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). In addition to the traditional charges community development. Primary coordinating efforts with St. Lucie County are in regard to stormwater management and water quality issues. It is expected that within the planning period of this Comprehensive Plan the areas of wellfield protection, aquifer recharge and water withdrawals/reserve quantities will become equally as important. February 21, 2000 10 - 3 Intergovernmental St. Lucie County/Ft. P!erce Fire District The St. Lucie COur~h,, ,v ,*/r:~. -,:~ o;~.~. ~,~..---- Fire District was established by special act of the Florida Legislature in 1'959. This district provides full-time fire and emergency medical services for all of St. Lucie County. The Fire District currently operates ~ -13 stations located throughout the County. The. Fire District is governed by a~ seven (7) member Board comprised of two members from the Board of County Commissioners, the Ft. Pierce City Commission, and the Port St. Lu(:ie City Council. Since the Fire District is a special taxing district,, empowered to levy taxes, there is also one (1) at-large member who is. appointed to the Fire Board by the Governor. In addition to the required coordination for taxing purposes, the Fire Marshal's Office provides fire protection and building inspection related services to the County and municipalities. St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District The St:. Lucie County Mosquito Control District is an autonomous agency created by the Florida Legislature in 1927. The District is controlled by the Board.of County Commissioners acting as the Mosquito Control Board. The District serves the area from the Atlantic OCean to approximately 10 miles west of the coast. The function of the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District is to manage the mosquito population in St. Lucie County. To fulfill this function, the District is funded by a special tax district within the County's 10 mill cap and funds from the State. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) was created in October, 1976, through an interlocal agreement pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes. The Council's principal goal is to assure that future growth within the Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach CoUnty Region occurs in a manner consistent with state and regional planning objectives and that a high quality of life will be achieved for all the rogional citizens. Toward accomPlishing this goal, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council maintains a forum for identifying, as well as promoting, public understanding of local and regional issues and problems. To promote ~the implementation of plans and programs which address regional issues and problems, the Council acts as a regional information clearinghouse and intergovernmental data source, conducts research for the purpose of deVeloping and maintaining regional goals, objectives, and policies, and assists in the implementation of a number of local, state, and'federal programs. February 21,2000 10 - 4 Intergovemmental St. Lucie Metropolitan Planning Organization in 1983, :a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)Interlocal Agreement was executed between St. Lucie COunty, the ~cities of Ft' Pierce and Port St. Lucie, and the Florida Depa~ment of Transportation. The authority and responsibility of the MPO is The MPO is composed of nine voting members: five St. Lucie County Commissioners; two Port St. Lucie City Councilmen; and two Ft. Pierce City Commissioners. Other GOvernmental Agencies In addition to the governmental agencies described above, there are City, County, State, and Federal agencies with which the County coordinates and cooperates on matters of mutual-interest and concern. Table 10-1 contains listings of the various local, regional, state, and federal agencies interacting with St. Lucie County. HURRICANE EVACUATION A new bridge 'between the .barrier island and mainland near Walton Road has been identified in the needs analysis for the Year 2015 in the Transportation Element Traffic C!rc'-'lafi~n Element. The St. Lucie County Expressway Authority is currentlv'~lannin~ for a .new bridqe at this lo.cation. Their studies have shown the.construction of.a b.rid.qe at this location to be financially feasible usin.q a c0mbination, of..re~enues which .include bonds and loans.from the Florida Department of Transportation. Both the. Bonds and loans are to repaid usinq tolls collected on the. brid.qe,' Environmental issues for the proPosed Indian River crossin_q are currently beinq. ~,,r,~i,~,,,,,,~. mo,.~, ......o+.~.'.,+o ..,~., ...,.k-'k~, VVS4V&~E M~i41 I IVI I i · · i VVIIVEII ~&~VEIIVIIi i i VI. V~VII ~[ MI I~iIE~V ~IV' ~EI · I I VVV~i41VV Mill& · I VIVlVIV I& The Jensen Beach Bridge in Martin County has been an essential part of the traffic cimulation system for the southern portion of St. Lucie County's south island. As noted in the BIAS ~BHd~e!!l~~~f t?i!$~t~t~ t)(Kimley-Horn, 1986), development in this portion of the south island will not be allowed beyond the commencement level without either the construction of the Walton Road Bridge or improvements to structures in Martin County. However, since most of the undeveloped land in this portion of the island can be developed at the commencement level and, in fact, is mostly'developed to date, greater dependence on the Martin County structures is not anticipated. (for a more detailed discussion of Hurricane Evacuation, see the Coastal Management Element) , February 21,2000 10 - 5 Intergovemmental Evacuation Times If the northbound Florida Turnpike traffic uses .3 of the 4 lanes out of Southeast Florida and.the Treasure Coast Region instead of the normal 2 of 4 lanes, the high evacuation time of 22,5 hours can be reduced to 16.25 hours. Evacuation Network and Critical Links Of the 10 critical links identified in the Coastal Management Element, 5 are identified in the County's approved 5-year Traffic Improvement Plan {TIP) or have been improved. For 2015, all of the critical linkS have been identified in the needs analysis of the Traffic Circulation Element, as well as an additional bridge over the Indian River Lagoon. GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT The three adjoining counties have predominantly agriculture uses adjacent to St. Lucie County's agriculture borders and, to the-best of our knowledge, they are not proposing any changes alon.gi'these!i~.!b~rders, Land uses along the non-agricultural portions of the common borders are generally consistent and do not require amendments to the Future land Use Element or other elements of this plan. The City of Ft. Pierce is not proposing any changes to their land use and currently their boundaries are adjacent to the more urbanized areas of the unincorporated County. ~--ItVYVI IV~¥V 'I IV~Ik, .¥VI · II, IVI I ~%~-I I¥ ¥¥¥¥ [11 II Ikl I1¥ al V~ I~[I V it]¥1 IVI Ikllll · VVI IVI¥i¥1 I- -llllVilllVl tllV .~ifflk~l VVl IV III ilIV ~IIIIIVVIIMffVIg~V~E VV~lliff VI Ilgqk~ YVVll ~IIIIIVdlr~V~! The City of Port St. Lucie is not proposing any changes in their land use...,~"'~,.. *~'""..,.., ~hey:~:~.. ·...~ have commercial and residential uses adjacent to St. Lucie County's boundaries. ~he~O St. Lucie Village is, for the most part, a residential community, and they are not · ' changes. Eanduses~withintheVillage:'are c°nsistent.With/,th°se~'ini~the along theirborders· While the expansion of the services and/or facilities at the St. Lucie County International A if it should occur, could affect the The St. Lucie County COmprehensive Plan has been written in such a manner that it is compatible with the Treasure Coast Regional Policy Plan. No specific needs for additional coordination with the Council have been identified due to the direction provided for growth and development in the Future Land Use Element or other elements of this Plan. February 21, 2000 10 - 6 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS entities most often coordinate on, the method of coordination, the effectiveness of this coordination, and any perceived deficiencies in this system of coordination. COMPREHENSIVE' REGIONAL rpOMCY PLAN The Treasure CoaSt Regional Planning Council's Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan addresses the provision of public services and facilities on topics ranging from " in n'i" "Improving Student Performance" to Expand ~g Agricultural Opportu ~t es. The plan focuses on 25 goals as they have been identified in the comprehensive plan for the entire State. The regional plan furthers these goals with 75 policy clusters. The policy cluSters identify specific issues within the Treasure Coast Region in relationship to the overall State goal. The Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan' · provides background on each issue; e lists significant resources applicable to the specific issue that are available within the region; e identifies the agencies and organizations that are directly involved; and m specifies the regional goal, the corresponding policies, and the measures by which the effectiveness or success of the policy will be compared. The intergovernmental coordination cluster of the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan seeks to eliminate unnecessary duplication of programs and activities. Significant coordination currently takes place between St. Lucie County and Treasure Coast Regional planning Council in the form of Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) reviews and local comprehensive plan reviews. February 21, 2000 10 - 7 Intergovernmental INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES The following Element has been modified based on Local Planning Agency~direction. The Element will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners in this format. Shad~ matefi~ is recommended for addition, e,,~,~.t..,k ..... ~. ,~,...a~] ;~ .................. e ............. recommended for deletion. GOAL 10.1: ESTABLISH EFFECTIVE COORDINATION MEASURES AMONG ALL' PERTINENT PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC ENTITIES SO TO BEST MAINTAIN ST. LUCIE COUNTY'S QUALITY OF LIFE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES. OBJECTIVE 10.1.1: St. Lucie County shall establish specific means of coordination with adjacent municipalities; with· local, state, and federal agencies who have permitting and regulating authority; with quasi-public entities which pro.de services but lack regulatory authority in St. Lucie County,· ,with ~County. ~volunteer. groUPS; cit'lZen grouPs .'Who have n0tffied ~thec~ntY Policy 10.1.1.1: Policy 10.1.1'2: Policy 10.1.1.3: Policy 10.1.1.4: Notify in writing the cities of Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, and St. Lucie Village of all applications for rezoning and land use amendments which are contiguous to their borders or within an area of planned annexation. Through the development review process, coOrdinate all development in the unincorporated County with local governments that are adjacent to or will be impacted by the development. Charge the County Administrator with continuing responsibility for developing and-enforcing an effective intergovernmental coordination program for St. Lucie County. Support the Treasure Coast Council of Governments provide a regular formal forum in which to deal with issues unique to Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties. Policy 10.1.1..5- May 1, 1999 Continue cooperative education programs between the County and regulatory agencies to inform the public and development community about applicable laws and regulations. This could be accomplished by including brief INTERGOVERNMENTAL Policy 10,1.1.6: Policy 10.1.179: OBJECTIVE 10.1'2: Policy 10.1.2.1: Policy 10.1.2.2: OBJECTIVE 10.1.3: Policy 10.1.3.1' Policy 10.1.3.2: informational pamphlets in utility bills or other means of widespread general circulation. Again, formally request in writing that Ft. Pierce, Port St.. Lucie :and St. Lucie Village designate their anticipated future annexation areas, inform the County as to the nature of such plans and provide further notification in the event there' is change to these plans. Continue to review transportation service volumes and levels of service as they relate to state roads and coordinate with the FDOT relative to state level of service standards. The County shah coordinate revision of level of service standards for public facilities with any state, regional or local entity having r · · · operational and maintenance espons~bility for such facilities; and coordinate on the provision of public faCility improvements with. the capital facility plans of any other governmental entity providing public facilities within St. Lucie County. Establish a Planning Forum, to meet at least quarterly, to coordinate programs of infrastructure development and improvement between the County, the municipalities;andinterested PUb~Cgr°ups so that adopted levels of service can be maintained throughout the .entire County. Use the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council for informal mediation when conflicts with other local governments do not appear as if they would be otherwise resolved. ' The Community Development Director shah continue to be responsible for coordination of County activities with the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalities, St. Lucie COunty, the adjacent counties, and other units of local government such as the School Board providing services but not having regulatory authority over the use of land. Contilaue to receive and review copies of all proposed plan or rezoning amendments for areas adjacent to St. Lucie County boundaries. Continue to request liaisons regarding proposed plan or rezoning amendments from the St. Lucie County School Board, South Florida Water Management District, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority, General Development Utility, Florida Power and Light, and adjacent local governments. May 1, 1999 INTERGOVERNMENTAL Policy 10.1.3.3: Policy 10.1.3.4' Policy 10~1'.3.5 OBJECTIVE 10.1.4: Policy 10.1.4.1' Policy 10.1.4.2: In conjunCtion with other affected parties, including intereSted_public groups, continue to evaluate existing interlocal agreements when the Capital Improvements Element is undergoing annual review to determine if current funding is proportional to services rendered. Continue to coordinate closely with the School Board on the location of future school locatiOns in relation to the projected population and land use. SCh001 Board.. and~ the The County, through the County Administrator, shah continue to establish an intergovernmental coordination process to ensure full consideration is given to the impacts of developments proposed in the County Comprehensive Plan on other governmental entities. Support the deVelopment and adoption of interlocal agreements with the affected municipalities to coordinate the management of the St. Lucie River, Intracoastal Waterway, Indian River Lagoon, and Savannas. Continue to work with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to identify regional issues and to assist in the periodic updating of the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Objective 10.1.5: Policy 10.1'5.1' Review port activities in coordination with the Comprehensive Plan of Ft. Pierce. The Board of County COmmissioners shall coordinate with the City of Ft. Pierce, other governmental entities!;:;!andin~restedpubiic:: s to resolve problems related, but not limited, to transportation, development and land use, natural and man-made hazards and disasters, and protection of natural resources at the port. May 1, 1999 INTERGOVERNMENTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES The foHo~g Element has been modified based on Local Planning Agency direction. The Element will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners in this format. Shaded~matefi~~ is recommended for addition. ........... ~ ...........is recommended for deletion. GOAL 10.1: ESTABLISH EFFECTIVE COORDINATION MEASU~S AMONG ALL PERTINENT PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC ENTITIES SO TO BEST MAINTAIN ST. LUCIF~ COUNTY'S QUALITY OF LIFE AND ~ EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES. OBJECTIVE I0.1.1: St. Lucie County shah establiSh specific means of coordination with adjacent municipalities; with local, state, and federal agencies who have permitting and regulating authority; with quasi.public entities which provide services but lack regulatory in St. Lucie County;' :w~th-County~ volunteer groups; Policy 10.1.1.1' Policy 10.1.1.2: Policy 10.1.1.3: Policy 10.1.1.4: Notify in writing the cities of Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, and St. Lucie Village of all applications for rezoning and land use amendments which are contiguous to their borders or within an area of planned annexation. Through the development review process, coordinate all development in the unincorporated County with local governments that are adjacent to or will be impacted by the development. Charge the County Administrator with continuing responsibility for developing and enforcing an effective intergovernmental coordination program for St. Lucie County. SUpport the Treasure Coast Council of Governments provide a regular formal forum in which to deal with issues unique to Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties. Policy 10.1.1.5: May 1, 1999 Continue cooperative eaucation programs between the County and regulatory agencies to inform the public and development community about applicable laws and regulations. This could be accomplished by including brief II'~RGOvERNMENTAL Policy 10.1.1.6: Policy 10' 1.179: OBJECTIVE 10.1.2: Policy 10.1.2.1: Policy 10.1.2.2: OBJECTIVE 10.1.3: Policy 10.1.3.1: Policy 10.1.3.2' informational pamphlets in utility bills or other means of widespread general circulation. Again, formally request in writing that Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie Village designate their anticipated future annexation areas, inform the County as to the nature of such plans and provide further notification in the event there is change to these plans. Continue to review transportation service volumes and levels of service as they relate to state roads and coordinate with the FDOT relative to state level of service standards. The County shah coordinate revision of level of service standards for public facilities with any state, regional or local entity having operational and maintenance responsibility for such facilities; and coordinate on the provision of public facility improvements with the capital facility plans of any other governmental entity providing public facilities within St. Lucie County. Establish a Planning Forum, to meet at least quarterly, to coordinate programs of infrastructure development and improvement between the County, the municipalities,andi StextPubliC grOups so that adopted levels of service can be maintained throughout the entire County. Use the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council for informal mediation when ~ conflicts with other local governments do not appear as if they would be otherwise resolved. ' The Community Development Director shah continue to be responsible for coordination of County activities with the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalities, St. Lucie County, the adjacent counties, and other units of local government snch as the School Board providing services bUt not having regulatory anthority over the rise of land. Continue to receive and review copies of all proposed plan or rezoning amendments for areas adjacent to St. Lucie County boundaries. Continue to request liaisons regarding proposed plan or rezoning amendments from the St. Lucie County School Board, South Florida Water Management District, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Ft. Pierce Utilities. Authority, General Development Utility, Florida Power and Light, and adjacent local governments. May 1, 1999 INTERGOVERNMENTAL Policy 10.1.3.3: In conjunction with other affected parties, ~Clu~g interesteXl:pUblic groups, continue to' evaluate existing interlocal agreements when the Capital Improvements Element is undergoing annual review to determine if current funding is proPortional to services rendered. Policy 10.1.3.4: Continue to coordinate closely with the School Board on the location of furore school locations in relation to the projected population and land use. OBJECTIVE 10.1.4: The County, through the County Administrator, shah continue to eStablish an intergovernmental coordination process to ensure full consideration is given to the impacts of developments propOSed in the County Comprehensive Plan on other governmental entities. Policy 10.1.4.1' Support the development and adoption of intedocal agreements with the affected.municipalities m coordinate the management of the St. Lucie River, Intracoastal Waterway, Indian River Lagoon, and Savannas. Policy 10.1.4.2: Continue to work with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to identify regional issues and to assist in the periodic updating of the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Objective 10.1.5: R· · · ewew port activities in coordination with the Comprehensive Plan of Ft..Pierce. Policy 10.1.5.1- The Board of County Commissioners shall coordinate with the City of Ft. Pierce, other governmental entities~!~d!'~ st~.,ipUb!iC~' to resolve problems related, but not limited, to transportation, development and land use, natural and man-made hazards and disasters, and protection of natural resources at ~the port. May 1, 1999 INTERGOVERNMENTAL APPENDIX A ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS February 21, 2000 10-8 Intergovemmentai ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: City of Ft. Pierce Participating Entities: St. Lucie County City of Ft. Pierce Existing IsSues or Problems: - Adjacent Land Uses - Beach Renourishment - ExtensiOn of Services - Downtown Redevelopment - Port Development - Administration and Collection of Impact Fees - Beach Access - Provision of Social Services - Traffic Flow - Annexation - Wellfield Protection Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements Existing Method ~of Coordination: Three formally authorized forums exist for the revieW of matters of local concern, the MPO, Treasure Coast Council of Governments and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The fault with these bodies is that they do not include, as regular members, the entire elected bodies of the two jurisdictions. No other formal mechanism currently exists. At the department level, informal coordination regularly takes place. Interlocal agreements exist between the City and County concerning the MPO, the administration .of impact fees, Wellfield Protection and for the provision of recreation facilities. Occasionally, the rCity and County Commissions hold joint meetings to review and form combined decisions on matters of mutual interest. P01icies;iforthe?Pe Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): Aside from the three formal points of exchange, no duly authorized forum exists that would permit scheduled interaction between the two elected bodies. Informal staff-communication exists for the purpose of informational exchanges as directed. Office with Primary Responsibility: Differs by issue. Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Generally, staff coordination between the City and County is adequate. However, this measure may differ by issue and office. Deficiencies and Needs: Existing administrative coordination is generally satisfactory. However, a lack of formal meetings or channels of communication can result in occasional conflicting goals and objectives. AdditiOnal Coordinating Entities: FPUA, MPO, TCRPC, Treasure Coast Council of Governments, SLC'FP Fire District, Erosion Control Board, ,.,,,,,,A.-...,,.,., Aather4~., FDOT, and Mosquito Control District. Recommendations: Closer coordination is needed on all issues between the City and County, especially concerning matters of annexation, utility service, and the Port of Ft. Pierce. Explore the formal inclusion of administrative representatives to the St. Lucia Development Review Committee and establish a System of coordinated input for issues of local concern. Policy Reference: 10.1.1,1; 10.1.1.2; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.5; 10.1.1.8; 10.1.2.1; 10.1.2.2; 10.1.3.1; 10.1.3.2; 10.1.3.3; 10.1.4.1, 10,1.4.3. February 21,2000 10 - 9 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: City of Port St. Lucia Participating Entitles: St. Lucie County City. of port St. Lucie Existing Issues or Problems: - Adjacent Land Uses - Traffic Flow - Extension of Services - Provision of SOCial Services - Administration and - Collection of Impact Fees - Annexation - Wellfield Protection Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements Existing Method of Coordination: Three formally authorized: forums eXist for the review of matters of local concern, the MPO, Treasure Coast Council of Governments and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The fault with these bodies is that they do not include, as regular members, the entire elected bodies of the two jurisdictions. No other formal mechanism currently exists. At the department level, informal coordination regUlarly takes place. Interlocal agreements exist between the City and County concerning the MPO, the administration of impact fees, Wellfield Protection. Occasionally, the City and County Commissions hold joint meetings to review and form combined decisions on matters of mutual community interest. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): Aside from the three formal points of exchange, no duly authorized forum exists that would permit scheduled interaction between the two elected bodies. Informal staff communication exists for the purpose of informational exchange as directed. Office with Primary Responsibility: Differs by issue. Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Generally, coordination between the City and County is adequate. However, this measure may differ by issue and office. Deficiencies and Needs: Existing administrative coordination is generally satisfactory. However, a lack of formal meetings or channels of communication can result in occasional conflicting goals and objectives. Additional Coordinating Entities: .Port'St,:.LUcieUtilities GDU, FPUA, FPL, MPO, TCRPC, Treasure Coast Council of Governments, SLC-FP Fire District, FDOT, and Mosquito Control District Recommendations: Closer coordination is needed on all issues between the City and County, especially concerning matters of annexation, utility service, and rOadway improvement. Explore the .formal inclusion of administrative representatives to the St. Lucie Development Review Committee and establish a system of coordinated input for issues of lOcal concern. Policy Reference: 10.1.1.1; 10.1.1.2; 10.1,1.4; 10.1.1.5; 10.1.1.8; 10.1.2.1; 10.1.2.2; 10.1.3.1; 10.1.3.2; 10.1.3.3; 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 10 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: St. Lucie Village Participating Entities: St. Lucie County St. Lucie Village Existing Issues or Problems: - Adjacent Land Uses - Provision of Public Services - Wellfield Protection - Administration and Collection of Impact Fees - Annexation - Airport Expansion Affected Comprehensive Plan Elements(s): All Elements Existing Method of Coordination: Extensive coordination is non-existent. Village does not have any full time administrative staff support. Nature of Relationship (i.e. AuthoritY): A very lirnited relationship exists due to the non-existence of any St. Lucie Village administrative staff. Primary contact with the Village is conducted throughr the part time Village Attorney. The Village does participate in County-wide impact fee programs. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development and County Attorney Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Limited, due to the lack of administrative structure. This hampers addressing joint problems in a timely manner. Deficiencies and Needs: Existing administrative cOordination is generally satisfactory given Conditions unique to the situation. However, a lack of formal meetings or channels of rcommunication can result in occasional conflicting goals and objectives. Additional Coordinating Entities: TCRPC, S* ~ '"'=" o..., ..,,~ A.'.....,, A,,,r..,.;,,, SLC-F~ Fire Distdct .... ,,,.. k.q..Vl-V, v, · q.q, ,.M, ,11 ivq.., ,., ,.Ms, ,v,, Recommendations: Closer coordination is needed on all issues between he Villa e ' and Coun , es eciall concernin matters of a,,,, ,- . -. ..... ~..... ~.~g ~ ty p .Y ~ g . ~... utility service, and roadway improvement. Explore i~provedCommunication ::for .development. isSUes/adjaCent !to the Village the ~ ...., ;.,,,,..~;,,., ,,~ ~,~..,;.,;~+,a,;.,,., ....... ,~,; .... +,, +r,,, ~, , ..,.;,, n .... ,,,p,.,,..,+ 0.,,,; .... r,,,..,.,,;++,,., and establish a system of wv,,.,,.~, ,,,~.,,~q..,.~.,, v, q.~q.,,.,,l,,~...~,~.q,,,q...Vl..,~.,vv,.,M.~.,,vq, ~.....-,v .M.~...,.,........ ,.-v.v,v ,,,v,,,, ,v , ,.M ,.. ....v, , ,, , ,,,.~..,~ coordinated input for issues of mutual ~ concern. Policy Reference: 10.1.1.1; 10.1.1.2; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.5; 10.1.1.8; 10.1.2.1; 10.1.2.2; 10.1.3.1; 10.1.3.2; 10.1.3.3; 10.1.4.1; 10,1.4.3. February 21,2000 10 - 11 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Indian River County Participating Entitles: Indian River County St. Lucie County ExiSting issuee or Problems: - Adjacent Land Uses - Coastal/Environmental Issues - Transportation - Solid Waste - Sanitary Sewer - Potable Water - Stormwater Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Coastal Management Traffic Circulation Conservation Infrastructure Existing Method of Coordination: Formal forums of coordination include the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and Treasure Coast Council of Governments. Limited administrative coordination, as the issue warrants. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): Limited Office with 'Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development and County Attorney Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Current methods of coordination meet current needs, however, they do not lend themselves to providing effective solutions to common problems facing each community. Deficiencies and Needs: A.more formalized method of. coordination is needed in order to ensure the compatibility of each County's land use and environmental 'issues. Additional Coordinating Entitles: TCRPC and Treasure Coast Council of Governments Recommendations: Regular and standard lines of communication and coordination need to be established and maintained. An expansion of the Treasure Coast Council of Governments could possibly serve this function. Policy References: 10.1.1.2; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.5; 10.1.3.1; 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 12 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Martin County Participating Entitles: Martin County St. Lucie County Existing Issues or Problems: - TranSportation - Adjacent Land Uses - Coastal/Conservation issues - Solid Waste - Stormwater - Sanitary Sewer - Potable Water Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Conservation Tr=ff!c C!rc,.'!=!!cn Coastal Management .M~_~ Tr=nc!t Infrastructure Tr~S~ti'0n Existing Method of Coordination: Formal forums of coordination include the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and Treasure Coast Council of Governments. There is limited administrative coordination, as the issue warrants. Occasional joint meetings of the County Commissioners take place in order to deal with matters of mutual community concern. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): Limited Office with Primary Responsibility: County Administrator, County Attorney, Department of Community Development, and Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Current methods of coordination meet current needs; however, they do not lend themselves to providing effective solutions to common problems facing each community. Deficiencies and Needs: A more formalized method of coordination is needed in order to ensure the compatibility of each Counys land use and environmental issues. Additional Coordinating Entitles: FDOT, TCRPC, Treasure Coast Council of Governments, and SFWMD Recommendations: Regular and standard lines of communication and coordination need to be established and maintained. An expansion of the Treasure Coast Council of Governments could possibly serve this function. Policy References: 10.1.1.2; 10.1,1.4; 10.1.1.5; 10.1.3.1; 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 13 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Okeechobee County Participating Entities: Okeechobee County St. Lucie County OkeechObee Fire Department St. Lucie CoUnty -R. Pierce Fire District St.: Lucie County Sheriff's D,epartment okeech°bee County Sheriff s Department Existing Issues or Problems: - Adjacent Land Uses - Emergency Service Response Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Traffic Circulation Conservation ~0iid~aste Existing Method of Coordination: The only formal forum of coordination is the newly established Treasure Coast Council of Governments. However, both the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department and the Fire District have interlocal agreements with Okeechobee County authorities to provide first response emergency service to the Bluefield Road area in the extreme western portion of the County, due to distance from Ft. Pierce. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The relationship is limited, except for an interlocal agreement between Okeechobee and St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office and Fire District. Office with Primary Responsibility: Sheriff and Fire District (active) Department of Community Development, County Attorney, and County Administrator (inactive) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination is adequate to meet present need, but in the future, coordination on land use, transportation, and conservation issues may become necessary. Deficiencies and Needs: A more formalized method of coordination is needed in order to ensure the compatibility of each CoUnty's land use and environmental issues. An expansion of the Treasure Coast Council of Governments could possiblY serve this function. Additional Coordinating Entitles: SFWMD and Treasure Coast Council of Governments Recommendations: Regular and standard lines of communication and coordination need to be established and maintained. Ex-officio membership to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council may be one avenue open to greater communication. Policy References: 10.1.1.2; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.5; 10.1.3.1; 10.1.4.1. February 21,.2000 10 - 14 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Marine Resources Council Participating Entities: Marine Resources Council St. Lucie County Existing Issues or Problems: - Stormwater - Indian River Lagoon - Watershed Action Committees Issues Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Coastal Management Conservation Infrastructure Future Land Use Existing Method of Coordination: The Marine Resource Council is an independent organization that strives toward providing coordination among all the municipalities bordering the Indian River Lagoon. The CoUncil provides a forum where individuals, special interest groups, governmental officials and educational entities may discuss and attempt to address through recommended policy issues of regional impact to the Lagoon system. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The Council is an advisory forum. Office With Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development, County Attorney, and Board of County Commissioners Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: The Council sufficiently fulfills its purpose. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are found in the present system. Additional Coordinating Entitles: SFWMD Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been determined to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.4.1. February 21, 2000 10 - 15 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: St, Lucie County Mosquito Control District Participating Entities: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners City of Ft. Pierce City of Port St. Lucie St. Lucie Village St' Lucie County Mosquito Control District Department of Environmental Regulations Department of Natural Resources Existing Issues or Problems: - Mosquito Control Activities - Effects of Mosquito Impoundments on the Indian River Lagoon ~EnVirOnmental!ysensitive landacqdiSitiOh Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Conservation Coastal Management Capital Improvements Future Land Use Existing Method of Coordination: The Mosquito Control Board is comprised of.the five St. Lucie County Commissioners. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The Mosquito Control Board is comprised of the five St. Lucie County Commissioners. Office with Primary Responsibility: County Administrator; communi~ DeVelopmeht and County Attorney Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are noted at the present time. Additional Coordinating Entities: None Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been determined to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.1.5; 10.1.3.3. February 21,2000 10 - 16 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: St. Lucie County-'Ft. P."=.-c= Fire District Participating Entities: St. Lucie County City of Ft. Pierce City of Port St. Lucie St. Lucie Village Existing Issues or Problems: - Maintenance of r adequate levels of emergency response service for the community ~De~elopment ~review Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Infrastructure Ports and Aviation Land Use Capital Improvements Traffic Circulation Existing Method of Coordination: Two County Commissioners are members of the Fire District Board of Directors. A representative of the Fire District is a member of the Development Review Committee. Through this representation, the Fire District is kept apprized of current development and construction activities withinrthe County. Nature of Relationship (i.e..Authority): The Fire District is a semi-autonomous authority. The Board is empowered to levy a special tax to support its operations. Membership on the Fire Board by representatives of the County Commission provides budgetary input to the operation of the Department. Office with Primary ~Responsibillty: County Administrator and Department of Community Development Effectiveness of-Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient. Deficiencies and Needs: The fire district requires the expansion of infrastructure so as to be able to provide the services to growtl~ areas (i.e., water supply, roads). Additional Coordinating Entities: State Department of Forestry Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been determined to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.1.4; 10.1.2.1. February 21, 2000 10 - 17 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: St. Lucie County School DiStrict Board Participating Entities: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie coUnty School Distn'ct sc=rd St. Lucie County Library DiStrict Board Existing Issues or Problems: - Multi-use of School Facilities - School Busing Zones - Program Funding - Location of New Facilities - Land Use - Administration and Collection of ar)r)liCable School Impact Fees Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s)' Future Land Use Housing Coastal Management .M=o~ Trano~t Infrastructure Traff!c C~rc'.'!at~cn Recreation and Open Space Tmnsp0rtatiOn Existing Method of Coordination: Forums for the formal coordination of issues effecting the two political bodies are limited to the Metropolitan Planning Organization - Technical Advisory Committee. Informal lines of communication exist between administrative staffs. Special joint meetings of the County Commission and School BOard may be scheduled for issues of mutual community concern. When necessary, specific interlocal agreements may be entered into between the two bodies. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): No formal relationship exists between the two bodies. Contacts between Boards are generally limited with the exception of specific purpose programs. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development, Department of Recreation and Parks, and Library Board Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies or needs have been identified at the present time. Additional Coordinating Entitles: None Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been determined to meet current needs. Policy References: 10.1.1.4; 10.1.2.1 ;r 10.1.3.2; 10.1 .3.4. February 21,2000 10 - 18 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Participating' Entities: St. Lucie Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) St. Lucie County City of Ft. Pierce City of Port St. Lucie Existing IsSues or Problems: - Transp~)rtation - Capital Improvements Programs Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Capital Improvements ~ranSpo~tiOn Future Land Use Traffic Cimulation Existing Method of Coordination: MPO membership jointly determines how federal and state transportation dollars are to be spent locally. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The County has no authority to require that roadway improvements off of the County Road System be made except to recommend changes through their representative members of the MPO. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Through the current system, the County has coordinated all transportation decisions. Deficiencies and Needs: The existing system is found to be generally sufficient. Additional Coordinating Entitles: FDOT, FHWA, and TCRPC Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been determined to be sUfficient Policy References: 10.1.1,9; 10.1.2.1; 10.1.2.2. February 21, r2000 10 ' 19 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Housing Authority of the City of Ft. Pierce Participating Entities: St. Lucie County City of Ft. Pierce City of Port St. Lucie Existing Issues or Problems: - Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Housing Future Land Use Capital Improvements Existing Method of Coordination: The Board of County Commissioners has assisted the housing authority in locating a small amount of public housing and Section 8 housing units in the unincorporated area. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): There is no formal representation of the County Commissioners on the Housing Authority. Office with Primary Responsibility: County Administrator, County Attorney, and Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: The Housing Authority has no jurisdiction in the unincorporated County. The Authority's effectiveness in the County would benefit from having their jurisdictional boundaries expanded. Deficiencies.and Needs: Housing 'for very IOw to moderate income persons needs to be addressed on a county-wide basis. Also, more data are needed to define the housing preblem~ in the County. AdditiOnal Coordinating Entities: , DCA, TCRPC,-HUD, and St. Lucie County Housing Finance Authority Recommendations: Investigate the advantages and disadvantages of having the Housing Authority of Ft. Pierce expand its operation to include unincorporated areas of the County. The County shall establish a housing data base and a county-wide Housing Task Force to investigate the need for affordable housing for Various income groups in the County. Policy References: 10.1.1.4. February 21,2000 10 - 20 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET CoOrdi'nating Agency: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) Participating Entitles: Palm Beach County (including municipalities) Martin County (including municipalities) St. Lucie CoUnty (inclUding ~municiPalities) Indian River County (including municipalities) Existing Issues or Problems: - Developments of Regional Impact - Intergovernmental Coordination Review - Environmental Issues - Comprehensive Plans Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements Existing Method of Coordination: As a participant with the Treasure Coast Regional' Planning Council, two County Commissioners sit as voting members of the Council. Among the duties =the Council is charged with are the primary review of all Developments of Regional Impact and the review and monitoring of all local government comprehensive plans for conSistency with the goals, Objectives, and polices of the Regional Comprehensive Plan. The Council also provides mediatiOn services, between units of local government when necessary. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council was created in 1976 pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statute. Membership on the Council is as stipulated in this Chapter and currently inCludes one additional representative from St. Lucie County Other than the two County Commissioners. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development. Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: The existing level of coordination has been determined to meet current needs. Deficiencies and Needs: None noteworthy. Additional Coordinating Entitles: All municipalities in the above mentioned counties. Recommendations: St. Lucie County should maintain an active role in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, taking full advantage of the forum it provides for the exchange of information in the resolution of issues of regional concern. Policy References: 10.1.1.5; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.2.3; 10.1.3.2; 10.1.4.2; 10.1.4.3. 'February 21,2000 10 - 21 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Treasure Coast Council of Governments Participating Entitles: St. Lucie County (including cities) Martin County (including cities) Indian River County (inclUding cities) Okeechobee County (including cities) Existing Issues or Problems: - Transportation - Solid Waste/Infrastructure - Land Use - Economic Development Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements Existing Method of Coordination: Established pursuant to Chapter 163.02, Florida Statutes, this Council provides a forum for the expression and review of issues that are of a more local concem than would otherwise be reviewed at the Regional Planning Council level. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This Council is purely an advisory body. No regulatory authority has been empowered to this Council. Office with Primary Responsibility: County Administrator and County Attorney Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Limited due to the informality of the Council's meetings and internal structure. Deficiencies and Needs: Limited effectiveness could be overcome through using the Council as the coordinating entity for quad-county/quad-community projects. Additional Coordinating ~ Entitles: None Recommendations: The Council could be of even more benefit on a sub-regional basis if it could take the lead in establishing and maintaining regular and standard lines of communication between local governments. Policy References: 10.1.1.5; 10.1.1,6. February 21, 2000 10 - 22 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Participating Entitles: (Local Only) St. Lucie County City of Ft. Pierce :City of Port St~ Lucia St. Lucia Village ExiSting Issues or Problems: Drainage and Stormwater Management Permitting Implementation of SWIM Bill (and its effect on the Indian River Lagoon/St. Lucie River estuary network) Water Quality/Quantity Wetland/Upland Protection (incl inland isolated wetlands) Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Infrastructure Pc.t, =cd ,~,':~=t!cn Capital Improvements Recreation and Open Space ~ti0n Future Land Use Conservation Coastal Management ,, k.~,,,.~, v,, v~,,..4~,v, · Existing Method of COOrdination: Local Govemment Assistance Program - Data Documentation Manual - Liaison by staff - Permitting through District Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): Participates in the Review of all Developments of Regional Impact Reviews/permits stormwater management facilities for any development greater than 10 acres Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination/communication between the County and SFWMD has been greatly improved since the District has provided a full-time liaison. Deficiencies and Needs: Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient. Additional Coordinating Entitlee: Arrnyc0rPofEngineem ACOE and DepaAmentofEnvironmen~l:Protection DER- jurisdictional wetlands Recommendations: Existing methods of coordination have been determined to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10,1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.3.2; 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 23 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: U.S. 'Soil Conservation Service Participating Entities: St. Lucie County Soil Conservation Service Existing Issues or Problems: - Soil Stabilization - Agricultural Best Management Practices - Protection/Erosion Control of St. Lucie River Shoreline Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Infrastructure Conservation Coastal Management Future Land Use' Existing Method of Coordination: The Soil Conservation Service is a federal entity associated with the Department of Agriculture. Coordination with the County is informal and infrequent. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The existing relationship is adequate. Office with Primary Responsibility Department of Community Development and Agricultural Extension Services Effectiveness of CoordinatiOn Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are noted at present. Additional Coordinating Entitles: SFWMD, Florida :' ~:: ...... h .... n""~ ~'Wlldllfe':' ..... ~-- ..... '~ =-'-~' .... *'--Fish' Fisa d- . .,. .......... ...... ....... , ... Commission, Depa~ment'dEnvi~nme. n~l:Pmt~tlon DE-R, and Drainage Districts-a~M-ONR Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been found to be sufficient to meet current needs. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7. February 21,2000 10- 24 Intergovernmental Coordinating Agency: Participating Entitles: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Existing'Issues or Problems: - Hazardous Waste - Groundwater Contamination Wellfield protection Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Infrastructure Conservation Existing Method of Coordination: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services (HRS) - Social Service Issues - Septic Permits - Air Quality Future Land Use Housing Very informal coordination exists between HRS and St. Lucie County. What coordination does take place is primarily between the County Department of Community Development, and the HRS Environmental Health Unit. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This is an advisory relationship. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Present coordination efforts have been determined to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No clear channels of communication exist between St. Lucie County and HRS. Additional Coordinating Entities: Recommendations: A cooperative education program 'needs to be undertaken. This should focus on informing the public about household hazardous wastes, proper disposal methods and less environmentally harmful substitutes for these products. In addition, the County should develop methods of coordination for review and comment on social issues requiring special permitting from the Department. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7. February 21,2000 10 - 25 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Florida ~.~ ........... o .... ._,,,.. Fish a d W d ife Commission Coordinating Agency · ~ ..... ,~ c,,,o~, .... ~--'" n ill' Participating Entitles St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners FlOrida ~r~.,~,~ ~,n,~j Fr~..~=~,~ Fish and!Wildlife Commission Existing Issues or Problems - Protection of Endangered Species ~ Envir0nmentallYSensifive~nd i~UiSition Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s) Coastal Management Conservation Transpo~ti0n Future Land Use Existing Method of Coordination: Infrequent. informal staff communications for the purpose of exchanging information. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The Game and Freshwater Fish Commission conducts a periodic survey to determine endangered or threatened species. However, the County is not actively involved in this. Office with Primary ResPonsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: The existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient in meeting the present needs. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are presently found in the methods of coordination. Additional ~ Coordinating Entitles: Department~.!bfi!En~ir0nmen~!?ip~t~io~ DER and US Fish & Wildlife Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been determined suffiCient to meet present needs. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7. February 21. 2000 10 - 26 Intergovernmental Coordinating Agency: Participating Entitles: St. Lucia County Board of County Commissioners Department of Environmental protection Re~datier~ Existing Issues or Problems: - Mangrove Protection - Solid Waste Disposal - Sewage Disposal Wellfield Protection - Wetlands Encroachments (Tidal &' Non-tidal) , Water Quality (Tidal & Non-tidal) ,.iEnvimn~mentally.~SenSitive ~nd ACquisition Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(a): Coastal Management Future Land Use Ports and Aviation Existing Method of Coordination: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Florida Department of Environmental r P otectlon (DEP)....=..~. ..... , ....) - Dredge & Fill - Hazardous Waste - Potable & Nonpotable Water - Air quality Infrastructure Conservation Coordination :between the Departrnent?0fEnVironmental:Protection DER and St. Lucia County is generally informal, limited to administrative contacts. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This is art advisory relationship, assisting in the implementation of State and local regulations. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be generally sufficient in meeting present needs. Deficiencies and Needs: None noted. Additional Coordinating Entitles: Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Wildlife Service, EPA, SFVVMD, HRS, Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority, Florida .._. .................... Fish and!Wildlife Commission and Depa~ment:OfEnvir0nmen~lprOt~iOn DNR Recommendations: A cooperative education and public relations program informing the public of environmental regulations and programs would be beneficial. In addition, a local government liaison, such as provided by S~MD, might be beneficial in reducing unnecessary delays. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 27 Intergovernmental 5~5LY_~!$ 4"IAIVWJlII~ IVIIi~ll..iFiAW VI · · VlIII~lVlII~e ylllVy llrIr IIIi · · IIIIil ] · lVl~Vllll.lll'llli;i Eft=-'_*.!..-:.-._-:: cf C-'__-'r_.Ir._-.*.!_-..-. -r~-f."c!:.'."-!:-' -'.'."- .".ccd=: · .v, iv, .v,.v,l,,l. · llFliV] i iylVl vi lllPqmFll IVI I t I Iv! IV! ii il i~ i vi i i i i)vl , !0.! ,~.;1. February 21, 2000 10- 28 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) . Participating Entities: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Department of Community Affairs Existing Issues or Problems: - Update of Comprehensive Plan - Areas of Critical State Concerns - Developments of Regional Impact - Community Development Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements Existing Method of Coordination: The County is required to coordinate its Comprehensive Plan, development regulations, and DRI's with DCA. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): DCA has review and approval authority over the County's Comprehensive Plan and DRI's. Th~ DC.~.'= w~,, · ,,., ,.v ,~., ,,,.~v,~,, Office with Primary ~ Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Methods of coordination between the County and DCA need improvement. One problem is the physical distance between the County and Tallahassee which can cause a misunderstanding of local needs and issues. Deficiencies and Needs: Them is need for greater understanding of lOCal concerns. DCA needs to be more responsive to the local government structure and issues. Additional Coordinating Entities: TCRPC and all adjacent municipalities and counties Recommendations: DCA should establish a local government liaison using the program piloted by SFWMD as an example. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1,1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7. February 21,2000 10 - 29 lntergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Partlcipating Entitles: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Department of Transportation Existing Issues or Problems: - Improvement of the Transportation Network · "ti'' ~'"1~'''~'~' ' - Bureau of AviatiOn ~-iAItemate~RaiI.Systems - Airport Expansion - Pc.'t E~p=ns!Cn Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use · ,...,,,,,.~ .q.~,, ...,v,..~.wq..,, Transportation Capital Improvements Existing Method of Coordination: FDOT maintains staff liaison: -Through MPO and Department of Community Development for transportation planning; - Through Public Works Department for construction and design; - Through the St. Lucie Port and Airport Authority for issues pertaining to them. The Port and Airport Authority will establish a task force to deal with land use compatibility issues should there be an expansion of the function, operation and geographic area of the airport. This task force will include representatives of St. Lucie Village, the City of Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie County, the Port and Airport Authority, the Florida Department of Transportation, Treasure Coast Regional Planning CounCil, and the Federal Aviation Administration. Nature of Relationship (i.e.:Authority)' FDOT has authority over MPO and is responsible for the primary transportation facilities in the County. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development, Department of Public Works and St. Lucie MPO Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination is found to be lacking at times due to FDOT unresponsiveness to local issues. Coordination is hampered by the lack of a local FDOT planning office. Deficiencies and Needs: The allocation of funds for improvements and the timing of construction is unresponsiVe to local needs· There is a need for a local FDOT planning office. Additional Coordinating Entitles: MPO Recommendations: Improved communication and open a local FDOT planning office. Policy References: 10·1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10·1.1.7; 10.1.1·9; 10.1·4.3. February 21, 2000 10 - 30 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Ft. Pierce Utilities:Authority (FPUA) Participating Entities: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners City of Ft. Pierce Ft. Pierce. Utilities Authority Existing Issues or Problems: - Expansion of Water and Sewer System Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Infrastructure Existing Method of Coordination: Informal coordination exists between FPUA and St. Lucie County. Existing coordination is primarily between the County Public Works Department and FPUA prior to County construction projects. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): No formal relationship exists between the two entities. Review and permitting procedures handled on project by project basis. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Public WOrks Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No serious deficiencies are found at the present in coordination between St. Lucie County and FPUA. Additional Coordinating Entitles: City of Ft. Pierce Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been found to be sufficient. However, consideration needs to be given to the inclusion of the FPUA in the County's Development Review Committee in order to minimize any long term utility/development conflicts. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.3.2. February 21,2000 10 -31 Intergovemmental Coordinating Agency: Participating Entitles: St. Lucia County BOard Of Oounty Commissioners Bureau of BUsiness& Economic Research Existing Issues or ProblemS: - Population Growth and Projection - Land Use Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements Existing Method of Coordination: The County receives publications from BEBR on population projections. Nature of~Relationship (i.e.~Authority): BEBR publishes official state population figures for Florida. St. Lucia County has been approved by the DCA to use the high population figures in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are found at the present in coordination between St. Lucia County and BEBR. Additional Coordinating Entities: State of Florida Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy References: No Specific Policy References ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), University of Florida, Population Program · February 21, 2000 10 - 32 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Participating Entitles: St. Lucie COunty Board of County Commissioners Environmental Protection Agency Existing Issues or Problems: - Land Use - Environmental Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Coastal Management Conservation Pc.-t. ?ransp0rtation Existing Method of COOrdination: The County complies with ali the state environmental regulations which in tUrn comply with ali the federal regulations. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): Regulatory as charged by the Congress of the United States. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are found at the present time in the indirect coordination between St. Lucia County and EPA. Additional Coordinating Entitles: HRS and Depa n DER Recommendations: Existing methods of coordination have been found to meet current needs. Expand as needed. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7. February 21,2000 10 - 33 tntergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating .Agency: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Participating Entities: St: Lucia CountY Board of County Commissioners US Army Corp of Engineers Existing Issues or Problems: - Environmental Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Infrastructure Coastal Management Conservation Pc.t, =.".d .~,':!~!cn Transportation Existing Method of Coordination: Informal coordination exists between the ACOE and St. Lucie County. Existing coordination is primarily between the Department of Community Development and the ACOE concerning dredge/fill and doCk permits. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority) Regulatory as charged by the Congress of the United States. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient atthe present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are found at the present in coordination between St. Lucia County and USACOE. Additional Coordinating Entities: D~artmentOfEn¥i[onmentall DE-R, ~ EPA and SFWMD Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.4.1. February 21, 2000 10 - 34 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Participating Entities: St. Lucie Metropolitan Planning Organization Department ~of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Existing Issues or Problems: - Transportation Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): - Transportation Existing Method o! Coordination: Administrative/regulatory, through the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Nature of Relationship (I.e. Authority): This is a regulatory relationship. Office with Primary ReSponsibility: Department of Community Development and MPO Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: None noted. Additional Coordinating Entities: FDOT, IJMTA and St. Lucie COunty Recommendations: Maintain existing levels of contact. Policy References: 10.1:1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6. February 21,2000 10 - 35 Intergovemmentai ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Participating Entities: St. Lucie Metropolitan Planning Organization Urban Mass Transportation Administration Existing Issues or problems: - Transportation Disadvantaged - Transportation - Alternate Transportation Modes Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Transpm~tion · ,~,$,.,~, v,,,~,,,,~.~,,~.,, Mass Transit Existing Method of Coordination: Administrative/regulatory, through the Metropolitan Planning organization. Nature of Relationship (i,e. Authority): This is-an advisory/regulatory relationship. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development and MPO Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are' found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: None noted. AdditiOnal Coordinating EntitieS: FDOT. FHWA, TCRPC and St. Lucie County Recommendations: Maintain existing levels of contact. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6. Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) February 21,2000 10 - 36 Intergovernmental Coordinating Agency: Southern Bell TelephOne Participating Entities: St. Lucie County Board of COunty Commissioners Southern Bell Telephone Existing Issues or Problems: - Population Growth - Providing Services -Affected 'Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Transp0.r~'~tion Tr=ff!c C!rc,.,!~on ExiSting Method of CoordinatiOn: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Infrastructure Very informal coordination exits between Southem Bell and St. Lucie County. Existing contacts are primarily with the Public Works Department conceming County construction projects and telephone line locations. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This is an informal relationship. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the preSent time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are found at the present time in coordination' between St. Lucie County and Southem Bell. Additional Coordinating Entitles: None Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.3.2. February 21,2000 10 - 37 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Florida Power and Ught (FP&L) Participating Entities: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Florida Power & Light Existing Issues or ProblemS: - Population Growth - Providing Services Affected ComPrehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Infrastructure Trans~rtation Tmff!c C!m'_'l~ic.''. Existing Method of Coordination: Informal coordination eXits between FP&L .and St. Lucie County. Existing points of contact are found between the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This is an informal relationship. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sUfficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are found at the present time in coordination between St. Lucie County and FP&L. Additional Coordinating Entitles: None Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10,1.1.4; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.3.2. February21, 2000 10- 38 Intergovemmentai ~Coordinating Agency: Participating Entities: St. LuCie County Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie County Water and Sewer Authority Existing~ Issues or Problems: - Population Growth - Providing Services Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Infrastructure Future Land Use Existing Method of COOrdination: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET St. Lucie County Water and Sewer Authority (SLCW&SA) - Regulation of Utility Companies The Water and Sewer Authority is a body charged with reviewing and approving the rates that may be charged by non-public utility operations. The Board.of County Commissioners acts as an appeal Board to the authority in matters that need further review. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authorlty): The authority is a semi-autonomous body, with appointment to it made by the Board of County Commissioners. Office with Primary Responsibility: County Administrator and County Attorney Effectiveness of COOrdination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient, Deficiencies and Needs: None. Additional Coordinating Entitles: HRS and tofEn¥imnmen~!pr0tecti0n DER ~Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy References: No Specific Policy References February 21:, 2000 10 - 39 Intergovemmental AHALYS!e_ · ,,, 1~.. ,. ,...,.~ .ks, ,q..,v, - Pc~ -'=xp:ns{on Ccnssr::t~c~. ----'llVllllU IllVltllV111 VI llr--l,ril~llilUlllVlll '"'V'.4''.d V' vv,,.,.. A._.d~_ !!!~.-.=., r.......4s..,,,H..~ · wv · · i v l! vvf i,{i vlv, vwviviiiv} VV,l,,lliVVl} yll I 11~llW VV~idlAWi i !04.4..3. February 21, 2000 10 -40 Intergovernmental Coordinating Agency: Participating Entities: Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control District St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Existing Issues or Problems: - Drainage - Land Use AffeCted Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Infrastructure Existing Method of Coordination: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control District (FP Farms WCD) - Water Conservation - Irrigation Conservation Most activities are coordinated through the Department of Public Works. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control District is a taxing body that is concerned with drainage, conservation of water and control of water levels to provide water for irrigation of lands within the District. The District is primarily an agricultural purpose district that, because of development activities, is converting into a more urban drainage district. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination MechanismS: Coordination efforts are found to.be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are noted at the present time. Additional Coordinating Entities: SFWMD and North St. Lucie River Water Control District Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 41 Intergovemmental Coordinating Agency: Participating Entities: North St. Lucia River Water Control District St. Lucia County Board of County Commissioners Existing Issues or Problems: - Drainage - Land Use Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use InfrastrUcture Existing Method of Coordination: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET North St. Lucie River Water Control Distdct (NSLRWCD) - Water Conservation -Irrigation Conservation Most activities are coordinated through the Department of Public Works. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The North St, Lucia River Water Management.District is a taxing body that is concerned with drainage, conservation of water and control of water levels to provide water for irrigation of lands within the District. The District is primarily an agricultural purpose distdct that, because of development activities, is converting into a more urban drainage district. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are noted at the present time. Additional Coordinating Entities: SFWMD and Ft.~Pierce Farms Water Control District Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 42 intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Port* St. Lucie' Utilities r:_ ..... , n-.,.,~,.,p..,.~.,,, ~;,;~;.~o ~r,_r~, ,~ Participating Entitles: ' · St. ~nty Board of County Commissioners Existing Issues or Problems: - Expansion of Water and Sewer System Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Infrastructure ExiSting Method of Coordination: Informal coordination exists between port St?LucielUtilities GDU and St. Lucie County. Existing coordination is primarily between the County Public Works Department and P0rtst.-~Lucie.~utiiities GD'J prior to County construction projects. Nature of Relationship (I.e. Authority): No formal relationship exists between the two entities. Review and permitting procedures handled on project by project baSis. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No seriouS ~ deficiencies are found at the present in coordination between St. Lucie County and POrt St.~LuCie Utilities GD'J'. Additional Coordinating Entitles: St. Lucie County Water & Sewer Authority Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been found to be sufficient. However, consideration need be .given to the inclusion of the. Port Sti./Lu¢ieUtilities GDu in the CoUnty's Development Review Committee in order to minimize any long term utility/development conflicts POlicy References: 10,1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.3.2. February 21, 2000 10 - 43 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency:. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Participating Entitles: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Po~ :nd .%"pc."t Existing Issues or Problems: Airport Operations Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s}: Pc.t. :nd .~.'.'~=t~cn Transportation Existing Method of Coordination: .Formal coordination exists between the FAA and the Sti!?;ii~je ~unty: B~ard ofco~?Commi~i0ne · ...~,,,..., -,~.,.,~,,v,, 1.~,,i...~,,..., , v~,v,..4,., ~.,,...q-~,v,. · 1~t..,,,,,,,~.~,1.~.~,~,.,,. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This is a formal relationship with the FAA supervising airport operations. Office with Primary Responsibility: Airport Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of ooordination are found to be sufficient. Deficiencies and Needs: None noted. ~ Additional Coordinating Entities: FDOT Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy References: 10,1.4.~. February 21,2000 10 - 44 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Florida Department of State, Division Of Historical Resources Participating Entitles: St. Lucie County Board of CountY Commissioners Florida Department of State, Division of-Historical Resources Existing Issues or Problems: - Protection of Historical Resources Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Conservation Housing Existing Method of Coordination: The Division of Historical Resources provides planning and technical assistance, assists local communities with their historic preservation efforts by helping them identify, evaluate and maintain or mitigate damage to significant historical resources. Projects with any state or federal involvement (CDBG, airports, DRI's, etc.) must be submitted for review to determine the effects the projects may have on significant historical resources. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This is an advisory relationship. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be generally sufficient in meeting present needs. Deficiencies and Needs: None noted. Additional Coordinating Entitles: None. Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. POlicy Reference: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7. February 21,2000 10 - 45 Intergovernmental Coordinating Agency: Participating Entities: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Florida Division of Forestry, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services St. LUcie County Board of County Commissionem Fla. DiviSion of Forestry, Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services Existing Issues or Problems: Conservation Land Use Wildland Fire Protection Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Conservation Existing Method of Coordination: Coastal Management Recreation & Open Space St. Lucie County contracts annually with the Florida Division of Forestry, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the assistance of a professional urban forester as well as wildland fire protection. A small portion of the urban forester's salary is paid by the cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County. The County Agriculture Extension office provides office Space for the urban forester. Nature of Relationship (i,e. Authority): This is an advisory relationship. The urban forester is available to assist all residents of St. Lucie County. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing meth'ods of coordination are found to be sufficient in meeting present needs. Deficiencies and Needs: None noted. Additional Coordinating Entitles: City of Ft. Pierce and the City of Port St. Lucie Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy Reference: 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7. February21, 2000 10 - 46 Intergovernmental REC~ATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ST. LUCIE COUNTY INTRODUCTION The Recreation and Open Space Element presents a review of the current recreation facilities and opportunities in St. LUcie CountY and includes Level of Service Standards and Goals, Objectives and Policies designed to assist the County in meeting the future recreation needs of its residents and visitors. Recreation facilities are important components of a community's physical development pattern. They contribute to the attractiveness of the area, as well as the health and well-being of its citizens. St. Lucie County's location along the Atlantic Ocean provides abundant water-oriented recreational opportunities. HoWever, it is important that the County provide and maintain a range of recreational facilities and open space areas for all persons having diverse recreational interests and needs, and not focus all of its efforts on water and water related activities. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT CONDITIONS The St. Lucie County Leisure Services Department operates facilities and conducts programs throughout the County. These activities are conducted at County-owned recreational facilities which are under the management of the Leisure Services Department. Several park facilities within the City of Ft. Pierce are under the maintenance responsibility of the City; however, program administration has, through an interlocal agreement, been delegated to the County. The City of Port St. Lucie operates and maintains their own park facilities and programs. In addition to the local facilities, the State of Florida owns/operates/administers considerable recreational acreage within the County. Additional recreation opportunities are available at various school sites within the County. In one instance, joint facilities have been developed. In other cases, the public may use school facilities during non-school hours without any formal agreements in place. Current Classification System Recreational facilities in St. Lucie County have in the past been loosely grouped into the following categories: o Beach Access o Beach Park o Community Park o Environmental Land o Neighborhood Park o Regional Park o Special Facility March 6, 2000 9-1 RECREATION Inventory of Existing Facilities Table 9-1 summarizes existing recreation and open space facilities owned, operated, and maintained bySt. Lucie 'County, as well as those facilities operated by the State of Florida within the COunty. The location of the facilities listed in Table 9-1 is indicated on MaP 9-1. This inventory was compiled by the St. Lucie County Department of Leisure Services and the St. Lucie County Department of Community Development. Table 9-1 further classifies these recreational facilities as either resource or activity based or both. Resource based facilities are those recreation facilities which are based on a natural, historic, or archaeological resource. These facilities usually offer relatively passive forms of recreation, such as hiking, museum or historic site tours, etc. Activity based recreation facilities usually have specific facilities for active recreation, such as athletic fields, ball diamonds, tennis courts, or swimming access points. As Table 9-1 indicates, St. Lucie County contains 7498 acres of activity based recreation and open space lands. Regional resource based parks, which inClude the beach accesses, beach parks, and EnVironmentally Significant Lands purchased pursuant to the 1994 bond issue, total 7619 acres. The Environmentally Significant Lands program has been responsible for the acquisition of 11,668 acres of land in St. Lucie County. Ownership of and responsibility for the management of the recreational lands in St. Lucie County falls to a mixture of state and local agencies. · These County facilities are supplemented by city facilities as shown in Table 9-2 and Map 9-2 for the City of Ft. Pierce and Table 9'3 for the city of Port St. Lucie The State of Florida owns five major parks in St. Lucie County. These are: o Jack Island State Park (958.0 acres) o Ft. Pierce Inlet state Recreation Area (250.0' acres) o AvalOn Tract (571 acres) o South Savannas (4855 acres) o John Brooks Park (406.8 acres) March 6, 2000 9-2 RECREATION Map 9-1 Recreational Facilities March 6, 2000 9-5 RECREATION i C ty Parks No. Park Tax Information Acreage Maintence Avalon Beach Access None (Recorded Street) 0.22 Acres 0.00 Acres ® Coconut Drive Park 2507-321-0001-010/8 0.77 Acres 0.05 Acres ® Coon Island Bird San. 1435-431-0001-000/0 30.67 Acres 0.00 Acres ® Martin Luther King Park 2408-801-0032-000/0 Blk 3 17.40 Acres 2408-801-0051-000/9 Blk 4 2408-801-0076-000/0 Blk 5 2408-801-0100-000/8 Blk 6 14.16 Acres e Fairway Drive Park 2421-801-0058-000/9 0.19 Acres 0.090 Acres 0 Garden Center 2415-601-0305-000/3 4'45 Acres 4.28 Acres 0 GoOdwin Botanical Park 2409-444-0002-000/9 3.70 Acres 2.63 Acres 0 Gulfstream Beach Crossing None (Recorded Street) 0.28 Acres 0.02 Acres ® Hayes Road Park 2415-601-0087-000/8 0.35 Acres 0.28 Acres 10. Hills Court Recreation 2415-133-0001-000/6 4.55 Acres 4.55 Acres 11. Indian River Memorial 2403-801-0025-000/3 2403-801-0026-000/0 15.66 Acres 9.22 Acres 12. Jaycee Park 2412-501-0001-000/6 17.16 Acres 9.50 Acres 13. Jetty ~park 1436-343-0001-000/3 1.80 Acres 0.73 Acres 14. Kimberly Bergalis Park 2401-434-0003-000/1 2.18 Acres 0.50 Acres 15. Melody Lane Park 2410-510-0001-000/8 0.46 Acres 0.36 Acres 16. lolus Elis Park 2404-143-0001-000/3 16.02 Acres 10.85 Acres 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Pinecrest Subdivision Park 2417-515-0007-000/6 2417-515-0008-000/3 2417-515-0009-000/0 2417-515-0010-000/0 2417-515-0011-000/7 Pinewood Park 2415-601-0071-000/3 Pioneer Park 2404-608-0098-000/5 Porpose Beach Crossing 2401-502-0009-000/1 Rotary Park 2416-504-0765-000/0 St. Lucie Beach Access None (Recorded Street) Savannahs 2435-411-0001-000/1 2435-141-0004-000/4 2426-342-0001-000/2 2426-221-0001-000/0 2435-121-0001-000/1 Surfside Park 2401-434-0003-000/1 South 8th Street Park 2410-704-0007-000/5 North 10th Street Park 2409-513-0001-000/3 South 29th Street Park 2417-506-0001-000/6 1.98 Acres 3.69 Acres 8.80 Acres 0.20 Acres 5.50 Acres 0.23 Acres 467.33 Acres 2.50 Acres 0.72 Acres 1.44 Acres 1.92 Acres 1.75 Acres' 3.25 Acres 8.04 Acres 0.02 Acres 4.67 Acres 0.00 Acres 0.00 Acres 0.50 Acres 0.69 Acres 1.28 Acres 1.64 Acres AIRPORT ST. LUCIE BLVD. E D ANGF 12 10 16 A, -3 , , LEGEND ..... , CITY PARKS ,, , .... pARK INDEX I. :sOuTH 8TH sTREET P~RK ' 2, DREAMLAND PARK 3, FAIRWAY PARK 4.GLIDDEN PARK 5. GOODWiN PARK 6. HAYES ROAD PARK 7,.ILOUS ELLIS PARK 8, JAYCEE -PARK 9, JETTY PARK 10, KIMBERLY BERGALIS PAI2K 11, MELODY' LANE RIVERWALK PARK 12, NORTH 10TH STREET PARK 13, PINECREST PARK ~4, PINEWOOD PARK 15. PIONEER PARK 16, ROTARY PARK 17. EIOUTH 29TH STREET PARK 18. SURFSIDE ~PARK , F [LE IBAR 0~/0GN/I)NIK$/PN~K$.-H~-$KL-$CN.£, 0GN _ , TABLE 9-3 OTHER PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IN PORT ST. LUCIE Facility Name Acreage Sportsman's Park 16.0 PSL Rec Center 1.0 Swan Park 6.5 Harborview Park 4.8 Jaycee Park 6.2 Kiwanis Park 3.8 Rotary P ark 5.5 LYngate Park 16.0 Doat Street Park 2.4 Rivergate Park 28.0 Loyalty Park 0.7 Windmill Park 6.0 Regional Park 200.0 Thomhill Park 20.9 PSL Community Center IRCC 4.0 Total: 321.8 March 6, 2000 9-8 RECREATION Open SPaces: .Several of the recreation facilities mentioned above have been classified as including open space areas. Open space areas are undeveloped lands suitable for passive recreation or conservation uses, In 1994 the citizens of St. Lucie County approved a 20 million dollar bond issue to purchase environmentally significant lands for preservation and passive recreational uses. The County has been able to leverage that amount into 40 to 60 million dollars of purchasing power, primarily through funding partnerships with state agencies funded through the P2000 program. Significant areas have been purchased along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, on Hutchinson Island, in the Savannas, and in the western portion of the County. These areas are listed in Table 9-1. The Indian River Lagoon, from Vero Beach to Jensen Beach, (exclusive of the Port of Ft. Pierce), and the North Fork of the St. Lucie River are identified as Outstanding Florida Waters. These bodies of water represent a Vitally unique resource/activity based recreation resource to the community, For the purposes of this element these areas are considered as open space. Further elaboration on them in regard to their environmental and economic influences on the community can be found in the Coastal Management and Conservation Elements of this Comprehensive Plan. School Facilities: The playgrounds and sports activity areas found at the community's schools provide excellent recreation opportunities on a neighborhood service level. The St. Lucie County School Board operates 32 schools; five high schools, five middle schools, and 19 elementary schools. In addition, there are three exceptional education centers. Public access to the high school grounds and their potential for use as recreational facilities is presently restricted due to security fencing but could be made available for the public. With the exception of a few sites within the City of Ft. Pierce, other County School Facilities are not fenced leaving their open areas available for public use during non-school hours. St. Lucie County and the School Board have constructed lighted tennis and basketball facilities as well as a lighted softball/little league field at the White City Elementary School Site. Through the construction of the new White City school, the field was shortened so that use as a softball field is not recommended. The field is adequate for little league practice. These facilities .are utilized by the students during the school hours and are then available to the general public for league softball and other activities. Primary maintenance of the recreation facilities is the responsibility of the County. Development of school parks such as this represents a viable, land efficient method for meeting the community's neighborhood park needs. March 6, 2000 9-9 RECREATION Other Primary Recreation ~Facilities: Golf courses are an important component in the recreational activities of both resident and visitor to the South Florida region. There is presently one public golf course (Fairwinds) in the County. There are also 12 private gOlf courses which, depending upon the season, permit general public play. Table 9-4 identifies the existing golf courses and whether public play is permitted. The St. Lucie Sports Complex, located in Port St. Lucie, and the auditorium at Indian River Community College in Ft. Pierce are under the special facility category. These facilities are available to the public, through leasing agreements, for concerts, special promotion events, productions, ball camps and other sporting events. In addition to public faCilities, St. Lucie County has a number of large developments that have private recreational facilities such as golf courses, tennis courts, pools, and trails. Most residential development projects that use the Planned Unit Development zoning furnish some type of recreational facilities for their residents. These facilities satisfy some proportion of the total recreation demand for the residents of these communities. March 6, 2000 9-10 RECREATION TABLE 9-4 Course Name Spanish Lakes 1 Spanish Lakes Golf Village Spanish Lakes County Club Village , Savannah Club , Pantherwood Club Med , Harbour Ridge PGA Village , , Island Dunes Indian Pines Indian Hills , , Fairwinds ST. LUCIE COUNTY GOLF COURSES # Holes 9 9 18 ,, , , 18 36 36 , 72 , 9 18 Public ,, X X X X X Private 2 , , 2 2 2 X 2 2 Seasonal 1 1 1 · 1: Seasonal play denotes short term memberships (summer or winter) and the ability to play the course on a daily greens fee only baSis, Membership not always required but nonmembers must defer to members for scheduling of available time. , Course developed in conjunction with private residential community. Course operation not 'always associated with residential developments, however access to clubhouse facility often through security controlled community entrance. Source: St. Lucie County Leisure Services and Community Development Departments March 6, 2000 9-11 RECREATION NEEDS ANALYSIS Service Population Projections: St. Lucie County has not conducted any surveys on the present demand for recreation and open space facilities. In order to assess the present need for these facilities, ratios have been used which are based in part upon national and in part upon the desired standards of the St. Lucie County Recreation Advisory Board. Population estimates and projections for St. Lucie County from the year 1990 to 2010 are shown in Table 9-5. For the purposes of this Plan, the future recreation demand relative to neighborhood and community parks are based upon the unincorporated County population only. The future recreation demand relative to regional facilities and open space is based upon the County population as a whole. However, it is recognized that interlocal agreements and coordination between the County and the Cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie will enhance the recreational opportunities for residents throughout the County. TABLE 9-5 1990 AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS FOR UNINCORPORATED ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FT. PIERCE, PORT ST. LUCIE, AND ST. LUCIE VILLAGE , Jurisdiction Unincorporated County Ft. Pierce Port St. Lucie , St. Lucie Village Total , . Estimated 1997 Population 63,058 37,484 77,985 606 179,133 Projected 2-005 Population 70,951 37,210 111,571 602 220,334 , , Projected 2010 Population 76,246 37,097 130,452 594 244,389 Source: 97 Florida Estimates of Population - University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research and Shimburg Center for Affordable Housing March 6, 2000 9-12 RECREATION As Table 9-5 indicates, the total County-wide permanent population is expected to increase from 179,133 in 1997 to 244,389 by the year 2010, an increase of 36.4%. The unincorporated areas of the County are expected to :accoUnt for 31.5% of the tOtal population. However, in the short term planning period from 1997 to 2005, the unincorporated County population is expected to climb from 63,058 to 70,951, an increase of 12.5%. It should be noted, that for the purpose of this Plan, only the permanent population estimates are being utilized. Seasonal population influences on the County's recreational services have historically occurred when the local demand/use for those facilities is at its lowest. Stated simply, the local population does not use the beach a lot in the winter and the seasonal visitor does not use the softball fields in the summer. So long as this trend continues, and St. Lucie County foresees no changes in the seasonal visitation patterns for this area, the permanent population estimates will be those utilized for determining facility needs.. Recommended Classification System In November, 1987, the St. Lucie County Recreation Advisory Board developed an updated classification system for recreational space. Except for the elimination of the mini or pocket park, the County is not proposing changes to the existing system. Mini parks are difficult and expensive to maintain. Existing mini parks have been included in the neighborhood or beach access category as appropriate. The classification system provides the basis for detemfining future level of service standards. The system as approved by the Recreation Advisory Board has three major categories which in turn have been further broken down into subcategories as follows: Local Recreation Spaces' Recreational facilities that serve a limited population size and that are located close to residential areas. A~ Neighborhood ReCreation Area: Area for intense and diverse recreational activities which may include, but are not limited to, field games, court games, sportfields, playground apparatus areas, picnic areas, landscaping and gardens, or senior citizen areas, and having a service area radius of .5 miles and a desirable size of 5 acres. Be Community Recreation Area: An area that provides a diverse range of recreational and leisure activities or contains areas of environmental or aesthetic quality, and that-has a service area radius of 10 miles and a desirable size of 10 acres. Facilities and activities may include, but are not limited to, athletic fields, swimming pools, gymnasiums, performing and design art centers, crafts buildings, and any facilities associated with neighborhood or mini-park recreation areas. March 6, 2000 9-13 RECREATION II. III. Regional Recreation Spaces: Area of aesthetic or natural quality that are designed to serve a regional or metropolitan population. Ae Regiona~etroPolitan Recreation Area: Area providing facilities designed for outdoor recreation and leisure activities that may include, but are not limited to, boating, fishing, or camping; bicycle, hiking, or horse trail systems; botanical gardens, nature centers, or zoo or husbandry centers; museums; perfo~ng and design art centers; and activities included under community neighborhood, or mini-park recreation areas, Area typically has a service area of 60 miles and a desirable size of 100 acres. Be OUtdoor Reserve Recreation Area: Area primarily designed with consideration for outdoor.recreation and nature preservation, including, but not limited to, areas for viewing and studying land, aquatic, or 'avian wildlife, conservation activities, swimming, hiking, camping, trail facilities, nature centers, or botanical gardens. Area typically has a service area radius of 60 miles and a desirable size of 500 acres, with the majority of the area preserved and managed in its natural environment. Unique Recreation Spaces, Either Local or Regional: Spaces developed for unique recreational activities or for a single .recreational activity, A~ Special Recreation Areas/Facilities: Areas designed for a single purpose or specific recreational and leisure activities that may include, but are not limited to, aCtivities such as zoos, conservatories, golf courses, gun or archery ranges, outdoor theaters, historic sites, marinas, botanical gardens, athletic complexes, or water sports. The service area and desirable facility size may'vary. Be Conservation/Open Space Area: Area preserved and managed to protect its natural environment or aesthetic quality, or to protect health, safety, and welfare by providing open spaces between roadways or development, with recreation and leisure activity serving as a secondary function. Ce Linear Recreation Area: Area developed to provide travel routes fOr one or more types of recreational or human-operated vehicles, such as horseback tiding, bicycling, hiking, jogging, or motorcross riding. D~ Waterfront Recreation Area: Area that is designed primarily for aquatic-related recreation and leiSure activities and that abuts rivers, lakes, lagoons, or saltwater bodies. le Beach Access Area: Area developed to provide access to waterfront areas. March 6, 2000 9-14 RECREATION Service area and desirable park size can vary. , Activity Area: Waterfront area providing recreation and leisure activities or facilities that may include, but are not limited to, swimming, water sports, boating, sunbathing, picnicking, playground apparatus, dressing rooms and showers, boat ramps and docks, boardwalks and pavilions, or concession stands. Level of Service Standards In order to establish an appropriate level of service standard for each class of facility, national standards and standards for other communities in southeast Florida were reviewed. Integral to the level of service is the base year population on which to set the service standard. For the purpose of this Plan, the year 1997 has been established as the base year. The estimated 1997 population, as provided by the St. Lucie County Department of Community Development, for the identified recreational facilities is as follows: , , , FACILITY TYPE , , Neighborhood Park , CommunitY Park Regional Park SERVICE POPULATION 52,280 52,280 128,541 , The extent to which level of service standards are met for the current population was determined, as was the demand for additional facilities to serve the projected populations for the initial planning period ending in the year 2005 and the second planning period ending in the year 2015. The results of this analysis serve as the basis for the determination of future recreation demand. The methods of funding the short term needs, 2005, are addressed in the Capital Improvements Element. Table 9-6 indicates the desired level of service standards for recreational facilities in St. Lucie County. As a guide in planning recreation and open space standards, it is imperative that a basic determination be made :as tothe level of service considered to be appropriate, desirable, and affordable by a given community. Such level of service standards represent a significant policy statement within the Comprehensive Plan and provide an orderly basis for a land acquisition and facility development program which responds to increases in a community's population. March 6, 2000 9-15 RECREATION TABLE 9-6 DESIRED OUTDOOR RECREATION STANDARDS FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY Facility Standard Per Site Service Area 1000 Population Size Radius Persons Served LoCal. Neighborhood Parks .5 acres 5.0 acres 0.5 miles up to 5,000 Community Parks 5.0 acres 10.0 acres 10.0 miles up to 4,000 Regional: Regional Parks 5,0 acres 100 acres 60 miles no standard Open Space Reserves no standard 500 acres 60 miles no standard Special Purpose: Special Recreation Areas/Facilities Conservation/Open Space Areas Linear Recreation Areas Beach Access Beach Park Waterfront Activity Area no standards no standards no standards no standards no standards no standards Source: St. Lucie County Department of Community Development March 6, 2000 9-16 RECREATION TABLE 9-7 RECOMMENDED PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD 5 AC. PER 1000 POP./COUNTYWIDE , 5 AC. PER 1000 SERVICE AREA POP. .9 AC. PER 1000 SERVICE AREA POP. March 6, 2000 9-17 RECREATION RECREATION GO~S, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES The following Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies are modifications of the portions of the Element as adopted in 1990. The numbering system is consistent with the 1990 plan and, in order to facilitate the public hearing process, will not be modified until this plan is ready for submission to the Department of Community Affairs is recommended:for addition. ° o~~ [~,,,~l,,,,[~,,, is recommended for deletion. Double underlined material was recommended by the Local Planning Agency. Material indicated by italics has been recommended by a member of the public. These recommendations are included verbatim. Each will be notated with its source and staff comments. GOAL 9.1' PROVIDE ADEQUATE RECREATION FACILITIES AND OPEN SPACE AREAS WHICH OFFER A BROAD RANGE OF ACTIVITIES TO ALL CITIZENS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY. OBJECTIVE 9.1.1: Active.and passive recreation facilities, and open space areas for the residents of St. Lucie County shall be provided in a manner so as to comply with the level of service standards set forth by this element and to maintain such compliance in subsequent years. Policy 9.1.1.1' Level of Service for Recreation and Open Space shall be as follows' Neighborhood parks: .5 acres/1000 residents in the unincorporated area. Community parks: 5 acres/1000 residents in the unincorporated area. Regional parks: 5 acres/1000 residents county wide. Policy 9.1.1.2' Accept and achieve the level of service standards as set forth in this and the Capital Improvements Elements, through an equitable and systematic land acquisition and development program. Policy 9.1.1.3' The County will continue to correct and improve upon existing deficiencies through additional land acquisition and development, and through expansion or renovation of existing parks and recreational facilities through projects 'specified in the Capital Improvement March 7, 2000 RECREATION Element. I1~1.'___ th I I ,4 .t-~kjll~/y. j / , Ir,Il' Policy 9.1.1.6: OBJECTIVE 9.1.2: Policy 9.1.2.1' . ~ ........L ....l_._ ~1_._ ~-- ~-- ..... L__ q I 1 _~ ~ ._anni-oni-;~tc usc ~,-: ",.~ ...... areas; : .1__ _ ~,,~ ,,,~ ~.,,,,,.~,.~,,~ aid ,fiscal ~~111~11L~ ti ~11~1~1 U1 ~ V~IU~III~IIL~I il~llt~ ~IU ~UIIIII~~. 111~ ~t~ _1__11 2~ ,2~. ~1 .... ~--~ .... .1 ......... ~2-..1 ....... D11~11 l~11LllJ LllUD~ ~~D ~11~1~ ~ LI~MI~ 111~11~Dl11~ ~P~l~ U~ 111UbL ~ppiup~mt~ ~ ~n, ~ pu~lul~ ~uup~i~uv~ ~,,u~t~ ~lui uul~, puun~ mlU pit V~t~ UIItltIU3 IUI llllpl~lli~lltatlUll UI UU pIUbUIILUU LU tliU ~UMIILJ ~UII~IIIbDIUII IUI ~UIIDI~UI~LIUII ~lll~II~lll~ll~ LU LIII~ ~UIII~I~II~II~I Y ~ 1- 1~11~ All areas having the Conservation Public Land Use designation will be used solely for Preservation and/or recreation. No residemial or commercial development will be permitted other than development typically related to park service and security functions. Through the use of public funds, gifts, contributions, mandatory fees and/or deductions, cooperative agreements, or other means, St. Lucie County will coordinate public and private resources to meet the recreation and open space'needs of its. residents ~ The County shall pursue development and enhancement of its recreational programs in the following programs: a, b, Supplement facility needs through interlocal agreements, operational practices, user fees and public/Private cooperative efforts. March 7' 2000 RECREATION Policy 9.1.2.2: Policy 9.1.2.3' Policy 9.1.2.4: Policy 9.1.2.5: Policy 9.1.2.6: OBJECTIVE 9.1.3' Policy 9.1.3.1: Policy 9.1.3.2' March 7, 2000 The County shall use monies collected from the recreational impact fee to acquire additional open space and natural reservation areas and to deVelop the necessary facilities. The County shall continue imergovemmental agreements with the St. Lucie County School Board and the City of Ft. Pierce to utilize school 1~[ recreation facilities. __._.._.. The COunty will seek through an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Port St. Lucie to establish the reciprocal use of recreation facilities. The County shall allow, to the extem legally possible, and whenever practical, other governmental agencies, such as the St. Lucie County School Board, to use the St. Lucie County Sports Complex. Maintain a detailed Recreation and Open Space Inventory which indicates the general location of existing and proposed site and facilities as well as functional classification, nature of improvements, usage, size, priority, and other appropriate considerations. St. Lucie County shall provide vehicular and pedestrian access to all public, active, recreation facilities, including barrier-free design features at entrance points to facilities such as buildings used for group assembly, spectator seating areas, and beaches and shores. Acquire and develop easements or rights-of- way as required to provide adequate access for public recreation facilities. Construct accessways which are compatible with the character and needs of'the facility, as well as being harmonious with surrounding development patterns. Continue to provide' public access to Atlantic Ocean beaches, and continue to give careful cOnsideration to providing related parking areas and dune cross-over ~'acilities without disturbance to the dune environment, natural habitats, and designated areas of particular concern. RECREATION New Objectives Management of ESL Lands, Coordinate w/Conservation Element Update countywide facilities master plan. March 7, 2000 RECREATION St. Lucie County Board of~County Commissioners Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting Roger ~Poitras Administration Annex Building - County Commission Chambers April 19, 2000 6:00 P.M. AGENDA ,CALL TO ORDER: A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call 'C. Announcements D. DisClosures A GE~A ITEM 1, !NTERGOVERNMENT L COORDINATION ELEMENT Consider Intergovernmental-Coordination of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. · Action Recommended: Approval · Exhibit #1: Staff Report ...AGENDA ITEM 2: RECREAT!QN AND' QPEN. SPACE ELEMENT · · Consider Recreation and Open Space Element of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. · .. ~.. · Action Recommended: Approval · Exhibit #2: Staff Report .OTHER BUSINESS: Other business at Commission Members' discretion. ADJOURN NOTICE: All proceedings before the St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to .appeal any.decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings 'is made, which record includes the testimony and ev{denc& UP~)i~ which the appeal is based. Upon the request of any party .to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. ST. LUCIE COUNTY I.NTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, as identified by Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule 9J-5.015, F,A.C. ., is to "identify and resolve incompatible goals, objectives, and policies, and devel.opment proposed in comprehensive plans and to determine and respond to the .needs for coordination processes and procedures with adiacent local, regional, and .state agencies." .St. Lucie County believes that a well-developed communication n. etwork among ali applicable public and quasi-public entities will enhance the iong-ralnge growth and. prosperity .of the County. St. Lucie County 'is governed by an elected Board of five Commissioners with an appointed County Administrator. The:re are three (3) independent municipalities within the County: Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, and St. Lucie Village. Each of these municipalities has a strong council form of government. The cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie include an elected mayoral position in the composition of their council. St. Lucie Village appoints a mayoral position from the elected councilmen (aldermen). The cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie each have an appointed City Manager. Ft. PierCe, the County se. at, had a ;., ~,o~, ~i!~~ Cens: population of ~:.!~.~ ,.,,.,,,,,,.,~, Port St. Lucie, with the remainder of the County at the op'ulation of the unincorporated areas of the County increaSed to ~ii!~O (Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research) ~"'~%"'~,~';~ o~: ~.,/ increased ~:~:~ ~8¢::8:::~ .o, .-~.,,. However, the population for the County as a 'whole' ?~;~:?~*"~:; ~;"?'"~:'"";~ ..... 4 over the ~9~ ~o~ figures during this same period. The primary influence on that growth rate wa~""t.~'~ City of Port St. LuCie, increasing by over ~~ ~ of its population to a .total of~;4 Ft. Pierce indicated a g~::~;~-,~.,u ~ncreas .. to and St. Lucie Village a ~.::::~ ,~,~ increase to ~~ 532. This rapid gro~h makes it essential that close cooperation be maintained among the incorporated municipalities and the unincorporated County, as well as with surrounding governments. INVENTORY There are numerous independent governmental agencies which affect the quality of life in St, Lucie County. Table 10-1 provides an identification of all the public and quasi-public entities with which either the County does, or needs to coordinate. Table 10'-1 also indicates a relationship of the various components of the Comprehensive Plan with each appropriate agency. April 18, 2000 10-1 Intergovernmental Table 10-1 Existing and PropoSed Coordination Links i i i i i ii iiiiii ii ~.,~-din~ti~ [Future Lsru:l Housing InfraStructure Coastal ' ~ ' Conseration Recreation Ced3ital Transportation [y use Open Space Improvements Ft Pierce X X X X X X X ' X Port St. Lucie X X X X X X X X i i : i i i i i i I r I I I ' ' '" I ' X ' ' Indian River X' X , X I X : X Martin X X i ' X X Okeechobee X X X ' X X X ...... i , TCRPC X X X X X X X X SFWMD X X X X X X X Treasure X X X X X X 'X X C6ast COG · ' '..¥ ..... X " i~c,~s~ ~× x x , x ~I,.C .Fire X X X X Ulstrict MosQUito X X X Control L JF~.-,I : I I I .11 I I I I I Uousing X Financ~ : II'poi i ix [ i i~1 i i i i X X FPFWCD X X X pc ~ k i i i i i i , NSLRWCD X X X I ~ I I I I II I I I I I I I I FDOT X X X X i i ii i i ii i ii i i i iii DEP ,~ X X X X X ~,~,, , i ' ...... X DCA ' X X X X X X X , ,i . i i HRS X X X X i ~1 i i i i i ! i FF&W X X ..IL .] [ i II I I I I I iii II BEBR X X X X [ I i , i i i i ! i i i i UiStorical X X He:sources I, ...... FOrestry X X X X i i ii i i i i ,,, ,, G& ~,~m}umer UMPTA X -~ i i ~ ~ ~ i i i ii ~ i i i i , i . i i iiii i i i FPUA X X PSL X X ~ , i i ii I , i ' i i i imlll ii iii FPL ,~ X X So i~, ~ ' x .... i i i i i The folloWing paragraphs provide a brief description of the various agencies, authorities, boards and organizations that St. Lucie County must coordinate with on a frequent or~ dail.y basis. St. Lucie County Publie School DiStriCt ~,,o*,-.-, Ir L III I D~strmt ,,~ ...... is an autonomous board The St. Lucie County Pablie School~ ........ 'r~'~':'~:~'~:~"~'~' e,,o~--,,- established under Chapter. 230, Florida Statutes. The district school system is controlled by an elected five (5) member School Board supported with an ~appointed superintendent. Each School Board member represents the specific .district in which they live, however, they are eleCted through the at-large voting practice. Traditionally the SChool Board and its staff, and the elected county officials and their staff, along with those of the various municipalities have worked Closely in facility and project planning. Examples of these coordinated efforts include the implementation of voluntaw school impact assessment for new residential developments in the early 1980's, the location of new school sites in the most rapidly growing areas of the community and the development of a County-wide mandatory School Impact Fee Ordinance (1988). South Florida Water Management District In 1949, the Florida Legislature created the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, whose charge, among other activities, was to regulate the problem of seasonal flooding from a regional perspective. In 1976, the Florida Legislature consolidated the various drainage and flood control districts throughout the State into five. St. Lucie County, then a member of the Central and Southern, became a part of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). In addition to the traditional charges given to the District,.the District has been given joint responsibility (with ~he?Depa~men! Of?Enviro~mentalP~Ote~ti~n DER) for water quality programs effecting ali aspects of community development. Primary ~coordinating efforts with St. Lucie County are in regard to stormwater management and water quality issues. It-is expected that within the planning period of this Comprehensive Plan the areas of wellfield protection, aquifer recharge and water withdrawals/reserve quantities will become equally as important. hasal SFWMD~ihas'~i PadiCi'pated With?~t~he~iicOun~ ~to ~. preserve environmentall.y:~-sensitive. landls~ in February 21,2000 10 - 3 Intergovernmental St. Lucie ~,~-,,*,, ~c, =~...,,.. Fire District VV~iiII IE~; iff · Eli I I'~l=lffl vv The St. Lucie ., DE.-,,,-. · 'r' County IF~........~... F~re Dist ~ct was established by special act of the Florida Legislature in 1959. This district provides full-time fire and emergency medical services fOr all of St. Lucie County. The Fire District currently operates ~5-13 stations The Fire District is governed by a seven (7) member Board comprised of two members from the Board rof County Commissioners, the Ft. Pierce City Commission, and the Port St. Lucie City Council. Since'the Fire District is a special taxing district,, empowered to levy taxes, there is also one (1) at-large member who is~ appointed to the Fire Board by the Governor. In addition to the required coordination for taxing purposes, the Fire Marshal's Office provides fire protection and building inspection related services to the County and municipalities. St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District The St..Lucie County Mosquito Control District is an autonomous agency created by the Florida Legislature in 1927. The District is controlled by the Board of County Commissioners acting as the Mosquito Control Board. The District serves the area from the Atlantic Ocean to approximately 10 miles west of the coast. The function of the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District is to manage the mosquito population in St. Lucie County. To fulfill this function, the District is funded by a special tax district within the County's 10 mill cap and funds from the State. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) was created in October, 1976, through an interlocal agreement pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes. The Council's principal goal is toassure that future growth within the Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm' Beach County Region occurs in a manner consistent with state and regional planning objectives and that a high quality of life will be achieved for all the regional citizens. Toward accomPlishing this goal, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council maintains a forum for identifying, as well as promoting, public understanding of local and regional issues and problems. To promote the implementation of plans and programs which address regional issues and problems, the CoUncil acts as a regiOnal information clearinghouse and intergovernmental data source, Conducts research for the purpose of ~ developing and maintaining regional goals, objectives, and poliCies, and assists in the implementation of a number of local, state, and federal programs. February 21, 2000 10 - 4 Intergovernmental St. Lucie Metropolitan Planning Organization In 1983, a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Interlocal Agreement was executed between 'St. LUcie County, the cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie, and the Florida Department of Transportation. The authority and responsibility ofthe.MPO is for the ma ement of a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation plannin and the programming of transpO~ation improvements for~the St. Lucie County urbanized area. The MPO is composed of nine voting members: five St. Lucie County Commissioners; two Port St. Lucie City Councilmen; and two' Ft. Pierce City Commissioners. Other Governmental Agencies In addition to the governmental agencies described above, there are City, County, State, and Federal agencies with which the C°unty coordinates and cooperates on matters of mUtual interest and concern. Table 10-1 contains listings of the various local, ~regional, state, and federal agencies interacting with St. Lucie County. HURRICANE EVACUATION A new bridge between the barrier island, and mainland near Walton Road has been identified in the needs analysis for the year 2015 in the Transportation Element Traffic C!rc'.'!at!on Element. The St. Lucie County Expressway Authority is currentlY ~lannin.q for.a new bridge at this location. Their studies .'have shown the construction of a brid.qe at this location to be financially feasible usinq a combinatiOn of revenues which include bonds and loans from the Florida Department of TransPortation. Both the Bonds and loans are to repaid usin~ tolls collected .on the .bridge. Environmental issues for the ~roposed Indian River crossing are currently being considered. =;o'-~'~"'-"o*-~"+o "'o" · i i I iVVyl vvIIV~IylII~kV lily% IE~IViIiIII~I& ~VIIV~I YVtlVI I VI VYVI I Y Ml ly~V &V Y VVYV&Yl Ilia, I1~ h~ ~f~m~l~lfa ~)~ ~l~fl ~f ~f6 fh~n- The Jensen Beach ~Bridge in Martin County has been an essential part of the traffic cimulation syste, m for the southern portion of St. Lucie County's south island. As noted in the BIAS ~{aridge;?!l~"a~t~A~~~6!ht!'iSt~(~m~ht)(Kimley-H°rn, 1986), development in this portion of the south island will not be allowed beyond the commencement level ~without either the construction of the Walton Road Bridge or improvements to structures in Martin County. However, since most of the undeveloped land in this portion of-the island can be developed at the commencement level and, in fact, is mostly developed to date, greater dependence on the Martin County structures is not anticipated' (for a more detailed discussion of Hurricane Evacuation, see the Coastal. Management Element) February 21,2000 10 - 5 Intergovemmental Evacuation Times If the northboUnd Florida Turnpike traffic uses 3 of the. 4 lanes out of Southeast Florida and the Treasure Coast Region instead of the normal 2 of 4 lanes, the high evacuation time of 22.5 houm can be reduced to 16.25 hours. Evacuation Network and Critical Links Of the 10 critical links :identified in the Coastal Management Element, 5 are identified in the County's approved 5-year Traffic Improvement Plan (TIP) or have been improved. For 2015, all of the critical links have been identified in the needs analysis of the Traffic Circulation Element, as well as an additional bridge over the Indian River Lagoon. GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT The three adjoining counties have predominantly agriculture uses adjacent to St. Lucie County's agriculture borderS and, to the best of our knowledge, they are not proposing any changes alongtheseii!b0tdem. Land uses along the non-agricultural portions of the common borders are generally consistent and do not require amendments to the Future land Use .Element or other elements of this plan. The City of Ft. Pieme is not proposing any changes to their land use and currently their boundaries are adjacent to the more urbanized areas of the unincorporated County. FortPieme has-arather~,~a-~~...~_ . . ~ -.~ .~....~-. _..resslve·" .... .~"~annexat~0n ~' ' .... ~'~polmy" ~'' .-o,,--,,~,,,,,,....,. ...... , ..... o,,-,--,_., ~,-- .... lllllVlllVl &llV left&Mi VVl IV iii iliV MIIIIIVVl IEffVI~EEiVIi4 VVMIIEiIff VI IIMV BlffVVll ~i41111VAVMI The City of Port St..Lucie is.not proposing any changes in their land .......-=,~ ...o,"~... ~"--,,....., They~ .. have commercial and residential uses adiacent to St. Lucie County's boundaries, ~hes~ uses arecon~siste nt_~ With i uses. adjacent ~: and' within the"County. St. Lucie Village is, for the most part, a residential community, and they are not proposin! les. LandluSes!Within the'Village.are~ c°nsistent:Withthose?inthe · uni the expansion of the services and/or facilities atthe St. Lucie County International Airport, if it should occur, could affect the Viii '~,1 iv &ll4~kJllk IVI VV il/VII l~ VU&~k~41k/liVl lVlkeI I I VIIVJr · I'-Ti~iif Vi &l I1~1/ VIVIIIVII& EWIII ~iAVEM&I EEl&il &IIVq~i/V I1~/~i/HV~llff &4~l/ &IIV]. ~k4111k/Vl The St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan has been written in such a manner that it is compatible with the Treasure Coast Regional Policy Plan. No specific needs for additional coordination with the Council have been identified due to the direction provided for growth and development in the Future Land Use-Element or other elements of this Plan. February 21,2000 10 - 6 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS In addition to the matrix representations provided in Table 10-1, an analysis of these local :and regional coordinating entities is provided in AppendiX A of this element. This analysis examines St. Lucie .County's relationship with those entities with whiCh it currently Coordinates. The analysis also looks at which issues or problems the ~o entities most Often coordinate.on, the method of coordination, the effectiveness of this coordination, and any pemeived deficiencies in thiS system of:coordination. COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL POLICY PLAN The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan addresses the provision of public services and facilities on topics ranging from r ii "Improving Student Perfo mance to "Expanding Agricultural Opportunities". The plan focuses on 25 goals as they have been identified in the comprehensive plan for the entire State. The regional plan furthers these goals with 75 policy clusters. The policy clusters identify specific issues within the Treasure Coast Region in relationship to the overall State goal. The Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan: I m provides background on each issue; 2~ lists significant resources applicable to the specific issue that are available within the region; w identifies the agencies and organizations that are directly involved; and m specifies the regional goal, the corresponding policies, and the measures by which the effectiveness or success of the policy will be compared. The intergovernmental coordination cluster of the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan seeks to eliminate unnecessary~duplication of programs and activities. Significant coordination currently takes place between St. Lucie County and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council in the form of Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) reviews and local comprehensive plan reviews. February 21,2000 10 - 7 Intergovemmental INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES The following Element has been modified based on Local Planning Agency direction. The Element will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners in this format, ..... addition, o ..........e ........... Shadedmatefi~ is recommended for .- · e~..~t. ,~. ..... ~..,,,,..,4,~ is recommended for deletion. GOAL 10.1: ESTABLISH EFFECTIVE COORDINATION MEASURES AMONG ~ALL PERTINENT PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC ENTITIES SO TO BEST MAINTAIN ST. LUCIE COUNTY'S QUALITY OF LIFE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES. · OBJECTIVE 0.1.1. St. Lucie County shah establish specific means of coordination with adjacent municipalities; with local, state, and federal agencies who have pe ~rmitting and regulating authority; with quasi-public entities which provide services but lack regulatory authority in St' Lucie County;:.~th'.:~County v01unteergroups; PolicY 10.1.1.1- Policy 10.1.1.2: · Policy 10.1.1,3' Policy 10.1.1.4: Notify in writing the cities of Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, and St. Lucie Village of all applications for rezoning and land use amendments which are contiguous to their borders or within an area of planned annexation. , Through the development review process, coordinate all: development in the unincorporated County with local governments that are adjacent to or will be impacted by the development. Charge the County Administrator with continuing responsibility for developing and enforcing an effective intergovernmental coordination program for St. Lucie County. Support the Treasure Coast Council of Governments provide a regular formal forum in which to deal with issues unique to Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties. Policy 10.1.1,5: May 1, 1999 Continue cooperative education programs between the County and regulatory agencies to inform the public and development community about applicable laws and regulations. This could be accomplished by including brief INTERGOVERNMENTAL informational pamphlets in utility bills, or other means of widespread general circulation. Policy 10.1.1".6: Again, formally request in writing that Ft. pierce, Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie Village designate their anticipated future annexation areas, inform the Cotmty as to the nature of suCh plans and provide further notifiCation in the event there is change to these plans. Policy 10.1.179: Continue to review transportation service volumes and levels of service as they relate to state roads and coordinate with the FDOT relative to state level of service standards. OBJECTIVE 10.1.2: The County shall coordinate revision of level of service standards for public facilitieS with any state, regional or local entity having operational and maintenance responsibility for such facilities; and coordinate on the provision of public facility improvements With the capital facility plans of any other governmental entity providing public facilities within St. Lucie County. Policy 10.1.2.1- Establish a Planning Forum, to meet at least quarterly, to coordinate programs of infrastructure development and improvement between the County, the municipalities;i!~dinterested. PUblibgro_uPs so that adopted levels of service can be maintained throughout the entire County. Policy 10.1.2.2: Use the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council for informal mediation when conflicts with other local governments do not appear as if they would be otherwise resolved. OBJECTIVE 10.1.3: The Community Development Director shah continue to be responsible for coordination of County activities with the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalities, St. Lucie County, the adjacent counties, and other units of local government such as the School Board providing services but not having regulatory authority over the use of land. Policy 10.1.3.1: Continue to receive and review copies of all proposed plan or rezoning amendments for areas adjacent to St. Lucie County boundaries. Policy 10,1.3.2: Continue to request liaisons regarding proposed plan or rezoning amendments from the St. Lucie County School Board, South Florida Water Management District, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Ft, Pierce Utilities Authority, General DeVelopment Utility, Florida Power and Light, and adjacent local governments. May 1, 1999 INTERGOVERNMENTAL Policy 10.1.3.3: In conjunction with other affected p~es, including stedpublic groups, continue to evaluate existing interlocal agreements when the Capital Improvements ~Element is undergoing annual :review to determine if current funding is proportional to services rendered. Policy 10.1.3.4: Continue to coordinate closely with the School Board on the location of ~mre school locations in relation to the projected population and land use. P0~cy ~I0,13,5 OBJECTIVE 10.1.4: The County, through the County Administrator, shah continue to establish an intergovernmental coordination process to ensure full consideration is given to the impacts of developments proposed in the County ComPrehensive Plan on other governmental entities. Policy 10.1.4.1: Support the development and adoption of interlocal agreements with the affected municipalities to Coordinate the management of the St. Lucie River, Intracoastal Waterway, Indian River Lagoon, and Savannas. Policy 10.1.4.2' Continue to work with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to identify regional issues and to assist in the periodic updating of the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. . e .:t0 abide~by, ationsof:~e ~ mffiCip~fies.?when.~dev~p~g. Objective 10.1.5: Review port activities in coordination with the Comprehensive Plan of Ft. Pierce. Policy 10,1.5.1: The Board of County Commissioners shall coordinate with the City of Ft. Pierce, other governmental entities} ~d.!interested}pUb!ic~: s to resolve problems related, but not limited, to transportation, development and land use, natural and ~an-made hazards and disasters, and protection of natural resources at the port. May 1, 1999 INTERGOVERNMENTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION GOALS, OBJECTI~S, AND 'POLICIES The foHo~g Element has~ been modified based on Local Planning Agency direCtion. The Element will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners in this format. Shaded m~efial is recommended for addition. · ............... e ......... ..~ is recommended for deletion. GOAL 10.1. ESTABLISH EFFECTIVE COORDINATION MEASURES AMONG ALL PERTINENT PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC ENTITIES SO TO BEST MAINTAIN ST. LUCIE COUNTY'S QUALITY OF LIFE A~ EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES. OBJECTIVE 10.1.1: St. Lucie County shah establish specific means of coordination with adjacent municipalities; with local, state, and federal agencies who have permitting and regulating authority; with quasi-public entities which provide services but lack regulatory Policy 10.1.1.1: Policy 10,1,1.2: Policy 10.1.1.3' Policy 10.1.1.4: Notify in writing the cities of Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, and St. Lucie Village of all applications for rezoning and land use amendments which are contiguous to their borders or within an area of planned annexation. o Through the development review process, coordinate all development in the unincorporated COunty with local governments that are adjacent to or will be impacted by the development. Charge the County Administrator with continuing responsibility for developing and enforcing an effective intergovernmental coordination program for St. Lucie County. Support the Treasure Coast Council of Governments provide a regular formal forum in which to deal with issues unique to Martin, St. Lu¢ie, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties. Policy 10.1.1,5: May 1, 1999 Continue cooperative education programs between the County and regulatory agencies to inform the public and develOpment community aboUt appliCable laws and .regulations. This could be accomplished by including brief INTERGOVERNMENTAL Policy 10.1.1.6: Policy 10.1.179: OBJECTIVE 10.1.2: Policy 10.1.2.1: Policy 10.1.2.2: OBJECTIVE 10.1.3: Policy 10.1.3.1: Policy 10.1.3.2: informational pamphlets inutility bills or other means of widespread general circulation. Again, ~formally request in writing that Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie Village designate their anticipated future annexation areas, inform the County as to the nature of such plans and provide further notification in the event there is change to these plans. Continue to review transportation service volumes and levels of service as they relate to state roads and coordinate with the FDOT relative to state level of service standards. The County shah coordinate revision of level of service standards for public facilities with any state, regional or local entity having operational and maintenance responsibility for such' facilities; and coordinate on the provision of public ac ty nnprovements with the capital facility plans of any other governmental entity providing public facilities within St. Lucie County. Establish a Planning Forum, to meet at least quarterly, to'coordinate programs of infrastructure development and improvement between the County, the municipalities,and~intereStexlpUb~cgr°UPs so that adopted levels of service can be maintained throughout the entire County. Use the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council for informal mediation when conflicts with other local governments do not appear as if they would be otherwise resolved. The Community Development Director shah continue to be responsible for coordination of County activities with the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalities, St. Lucie County, the adjacent cOunties, and other units of local government such as the School Board providing services but not having regulatory authority over the use of land. Continue to receive and review copies of all proposed plan or rezoning amendments for areas adjacent to St. Lucie County boundaries. Continue to request liaisons regarding proposed plan or reZoning amendments from the St. Lucie County School Board, South Florida Water Management District, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority, General Development Utility, Florida Power and Light, and adjacent local governments. May 1, 1999 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PolicY 10.1.3.3: Policy 10.1.3'4: In conjunction with.other affected p~es, ~Cludinginterestedpublici.~oups, continue to evaluate existing interlocal agreements When the Capital Improvements Element is undergoing annual review to determine if current funding is proportional to services rendered. ContinUe to coordinate closely with the School Board on the location of furore schOol locations in relation to the projected population and land use. · 4' OBJECTIVE 10.1. · Policy 10.1.4.1' Policy 10.1.4.2: The County, through the coUnty Administrator, shah continue to establish an intergovernmental coordination process to ensure full consideration is given to the impacts of developments proposed in the County Comprehensive Plan on other gOvernmental entities. SUpport the development and adoption of interlocal agreements with the affected municipalities to coordinate the management of the St. Lucie River, Intracoastal Waterway, Indian River Lagoon, and Savannas. Continue to work with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to identify regional issues and to assist in the periodic updating of the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Objective 10'1.5: Policy 10.1.5.1' Review port activities in coordination with~the Comprehensive Plan of Ft. Pierce. The Board of County Commissioners shall coordinate with the City of Ft. Pierce, other governmental entities!i~i~di?ter~~iip~c':~ to resolve problems related, but not limited, to transportation, development and land use, natural and man-made hazards and disasters, and protection of natural resources at the port. May 1, 1999 INTERGOVERNMENTAL APPENDIX A ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS February 21, 2000 10-8 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: City of Ft. Pierce Participating Entities: St. Lucie County City'ofFt. Pierce Existing Issues or Problems: - Adjacent Land Uses - Beach Renourishment - Extension of Services - Downtown Redevelopment - Port Development - Administration and Collection of Impact Fees - Beach Access - Provision of Social Services - Traffic Flow - Annexation - Wellfield Protection Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements Existing Method of Coordination: Three formally authorized forums exist for the review of matters of local concem, the MPO, Treasure Coast Council of Governments and Treasure rCOaSt Regional Planning Council. The fault with t. hese bodies is that they do not include, as regular members, the entire elected bodies of the two jurisdictions. No other formal mechanism currently exists. At the department level, informal coordination regularly takes place, lnterlocal agreements exist between the City and County concerning the MPO, the administration of impact fees, Wellfield Protection and'for the provision of recreation facilities. Occasionally, the City and County Commissions hold joint meetings to review and form combined decisions on matters of mutual interest. Polici~ :,the Nature of Relationship (i.e. AUthority): Aside from the three formal points of exchange, no duly authorized forum exists that would permit scheduled interaction between the two elected bodies. InfOrmal staff communication exists for the purpose of informational exchanges as directed. Office with Primary Responsibility: Differs by issue. Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Generally, staff coordination between the City and County is adequate. However, this measure may differ by issue and office. Deficiencies and Needs: Existing administrative coordination is generally satisfactory. However, a lack of formal meetings or channels of communication can result in occasional conflicting goals and objectives. Additional Coordinating Entitles: FPUA, MPO, TCRPC, Treasure Coast Council of Governments, SLC-FP Fire District, Erosion Control Board, p_-'..-*Jn~!;p-'_.-t Auther-i~, FDOT, and Mosquito Control District. Recommendations: ClOser coordination is needed on all issues .between the City and County, especially concerning matters of annexation, utility service,, and the Port of Ft. Pierce. Explore the formal.inclusion of administrative representativesr to the St. Lucie Development Review Committee and establish a system of coordinated input for issues of local concern. Policy Reference: 10.1.1.1; 10.1.1.2; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.5; 10.1.1.8; 10.1.2.1; 10.1.2.2; 10.1.3.1; 10.1.3.2; 10.1.3.3; 10.1.4.1, 10.1.4.3o February 21,2000 10 - 9 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: City of Port St. Lucie Participating Entities: St. Lucie County City of Port St. Lucie Existing Issues or Problems: - Adjacent Land Uses - Traffic Flow - Extension of Services - Provision of Social Services - Administration and - Collection of Impact Fees - Annexation - Wellfield Protection Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements Existing Method of Coordination: Three formally authoriZed forums exist for the review of matters of local concern, the MPO, Treasure Coast Council of Governments and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The fault with these bodies is that they do not include, as regular members, the entire elected bodies of the two jurisdictions. No other formal mechanism currently exists. At the department level, informal coordinatiOn regularly takes place. Interlocal agreements exist between the City and County concerning the MPO, the administration of impact fees, Wellfield Protection. OCCasionally, the City and County Commissions hold joint meetings to review and form combined decisions on matters of mutual community interest. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): Aside from the three formal points of exchange, no duly authorized forum exists that would permit scheduled interaction between the two elected bodies. Informal staff communication exists for the purpose of informational exchange as directed. Office with Primary Responsibility: Differs by issue. Effectiveness of COordination Mechanisms: Generally, coordination between the City and County is adequate. However, this measure may differ by issue and office. Deficiencies and Needs: Existing administrative coordination is generallY satisfactory. However, a lack of formal meetings or channels of communication can result in occasional conflicting goals and objectives. Additional Coordinating Entities: P0rt?St.~:L~:UcieU,tilities GDU, FPUA, FPL, MPO, TCRPC, Treasure Coast Council of Govemments, SLC-FP Fire District, FDOT, and Mosquito Control District Recommendations: Closer coordination~is needed on ali issues between the City and County, especially concerning matters of annexation, utility service, and roadway improvement. Explore the formal inclusion of administrative representatives to the St. Lucie Development Review Committee and establish a system of coordinated input for issues of local concern. Policy Reference: 10.1.1.1; 10.1.1.2; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.5; 10.1.1.8; 10.1.2.1; 10.1.2.2; 10.1.3.1; 10.1.3.2; 10.1.3.3; 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 10 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: St. Lucie Village Participating Entitles: St. Lucie, County St. Lucie:Village Existing Issues or Problems: - Adjacent ~nd Uses - Provision of Public Services - Wellfield Protection - Administration and Collection of Impact Fees - Annexation - Airport Expansion Affected COmprehensive Plan Elements(s): All Elements Existing Method of Coordination: Extensive coordination is non-existent. Village does not have any full time administrative staff support. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): A very limited relationship exists due to the non-existence of any St. LucJe Village administrative staff. Primary contact with the Village is conducted through the part time Village Attorney. The Village does participate in County-wide impact fee programs. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development.and County Attorney Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Limited, due to the lack of administrative structure. This hampers addressing joint problems in a timely manner. Deficiencies and Needs: Existing administrative coordination is generally satisfactory given conditions unique to the situation. However, a lack of formal meetings or channels of communication can result in occasional conflicting goals' and objectives. Additional Coordinating Entitles: Recommendations: Closer coo'rdination is needed on all issues between the Villa' e · and Coun , es eciall concernin matters of ...... +;.,,,. . ~ ~, .g .~ ........ ty p y g, . .......~. ...... utility service, and roadway improvement. Explore improved · communicationfordeveiopment i~ues adja~ntto theVillage the ~,,,.,,~, ;,-,.,,,o;,,,..,, ~.~,.,~.,;~,,~+; ..... p ..... +~+; .... ,.. ,k.. '~+ , ,,..~.. n .... , ..... + "'""; .... Ccmm!~cc. and establish a system of ,villi..4, ,,,....,..,,VlV,, .,..1 ,.,,....,,,,,.M,II..u. IIV IV ,'..--...',.., ,.,,..~,., ,. V,., ..,.... ,.1... V.~...~v,1., ,...v.,..,lvl.,,llV,,.., coordinated input for issues of ~utua{ ~ concern. Policy Reference: 10.1,1.1; 10.1.1.2; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.5; 10.1.1.8; 10.1.2.1; 10.1.2.2; 10.1.3.1; 10.1.3.2;10.1.3.3; 10.1.4.1' 10.1.4.3. February 21,2000 10 - 11 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Indian River County Participaring Entitles: Indian River County St. Lucie County Existing Issues or Problems: - Adjacent Land Uses - Coastal/Environmental Issues - Transportation - Solid Waste - Sanitary Sewer - Potable Water - Stormwater Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future. Land Use Coastal Management Traffic Circulation Conservation Infrastructure Existing Method of Coordination: Formal forums of coordination include the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and Treasure Coast Council of Governments. Limited administrative coordination, as the issue warrants. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): Limited Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of COmmunity Development and County Attorney Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Current methods of coordination meet current needs, however, they do not lend themselves to providing effective solutions to common problems facing each community. Deficiencies and Needs: A more formalized method of coordination is needed in order to ensure the compatibility of each County's land use and environmental issues, Additional Coordinating Entitlee: TCRPC and Treasure Coast Council of Governments Recommendations: Regular and standard lines of communication and coordination need to be established and maintained. An expansion of the Treasure Coast Council of Governments could possibly serve this function. Policy References: 10.1.1.2; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.5; 10.1,3.1; 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 12 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Martin County Participating Entities: Martin Countyr St. Lucie County Existing Issues or Problems: - Transportation Adjacent Land Uses - Coastal/Conservation issues - Solid Waste - Stormwater - Sanitary Sewer - Potable Water Affected ComprehenSive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Conservation T:=ff!c C!;c'.'!=tic~ Coastal Management M oo_~ Tr::n=!t Infrastructure Tr~~tion Existing Method 'of Coordination: Formal forums of coordination include the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and Treasure Coast Council of Governments. There is limited administrative coordination, as the issue warrants. Occasional joint meetings of the County Commissioners take place in order to deal with matters of mutual community concem. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): Limited Office with Primary Responsibility: County Administrator, County Attorney, Department of Community Development, and Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Current rnethods of coordination meet current needs; however, they do not lend themselves to providing effective solutions to common problems facing each community. Deficiencies and Needs: A more formalized method of coordination is needed in order to ensure the compatibility of each County's land use and environmental issues. Additional Coordinating Entitles: FDOT, TCRPC, Treasure Coast Council of rGovernments, and SFWMD Recommendations: Regular and standard lines of communication and coordination need to be established and maintained. An expansion of the Treasure Coast Council of Governments could possibly serve this function. Policy References: 10.1.1.2; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.5; 10.1.3.1; 10.1.4.1. February 21, 2000 10 - 13 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Okeechobee County Participating Entitles: Okeechobee County St, Lucie County ~ Okeechobee Fire Department St. Lucie COUnty- Ft. Pi,erCe Fire District St. LUcie CountY Sheriff s Department Okeechobee County Sheriff's Department Existing Issues or Problems: - Adjacent Land Uses - Emergency Service Response Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Traffic Circulation Conservation ~. ~lid'~s~e Existing Method of Coordination: The only formal forum of coordination is the newly established Treasure Coast Council of Governments. However, both the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department and the Fire District have interlocal agreements with Okeechobee CoUnty authorities to provide first response emergency service to the Bluefield Road area in the extreme westem portion of the County, due to distance from Ft. Pierce. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The relationship is limited, except for an interlocal agreement between Okeechobee and St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office and Fire District. Office with Primary Responsibility: Sheriff and Fire District (active) Department of Community Development, County Attorney, and County Administrator (inactive) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination is adequate to meet present need, but in the future, coordination on land use, transportation, and conservation issues may become necessary. Deficiencies and Needs: A more formalized method of coordination is needed in~ order to ensure the compatibility of each County's land use and environmental issues. An expansion of the Treasure Coast Council of Govemments could possibly serve this function. Additional Coordinating Entitles: SFWMD and Treasure CoaSt Council of Govemments Recommendations: Regular and standard lines of communication and coordination need to be established and maintained. Ex-officio membership to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council maybe one avenue open to greater communication. Policy References: 10.1.1.2; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.5; 10,1.3.1; 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 14 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Marine Resources Council Participating Entities: Marine Resources Council St. ;LUcie County Existing Issues or Problems: - Stormwater - Indian River Lagoon - Watershed Action Committees Issues Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Coastal Management Conservation Infrastructure Future Land Use Existing Method of Coordination: The Marine Resource Council is an independent organization that strives toward providing coordination among all the municipalities bordering the Indian River Lagoon. The Council provides a forum where individuals, special interest groups, governmental officials and educational entities may discuss and attempt to address through recommended policy issues of regional impact to the Lagoon system. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The Council is an advisory forum. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development, County Attorney, and Board of County Commissioners Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: The Council sufficiently fulfills its purpose. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are found in the present system. Additional Coordinating Entltlee: SFWMD Recommendations: Existing levels of cOOrdination have been determined to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 15 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District Participating Entities: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners City of Ft. Pierce City of Port St, Lucie St. LuCie Village St. Lucie county Mosquito Control District Department of Environmental ~Regulations Department of Natural ResOurces Existing Issues or Problems: Mosquito Control Activities Effects of Mosquito Impoundments on the Indian River Lagoon EnVironmen~llySenSitive land~acquisifl0n ~Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Conservation Coastal Management Capital Improvements Future Land Use Existing Method of Coordination: The Mosquito Control Board is comprised of the five St, Lucie County Commissioners. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The Mosquito Control Board is comprised of the five St. Lucie County Commissioners. Office with Primary Responsibility: County Administrator, CommunitYDeVel0Pment and County Attorney Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are noted at the present time. Additional Coordinating Entities: None Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been determined to be sufficient. Policy References: 10,1.1.5; 10.1.3.3. February 21 .- 2000 10 - 16 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: St. Lucia County- =*.....'"".... ........ Fire District · Participating Entities: St. Lucia County City of Ft, Pierce City of Port St. Lucia St. Lucia Village Existing Issues or Problems: - Maintenance of adequate levels of emergency response service for the community :~Devel0Pment~review Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Infrastructure Ports and Aviation Land Use Capital Improvements Traffic Circulation Existing Method of Coordination: Two County Commissioners are members of the Fire District Board of Directors. A representative of the Fire District is a member of the Development Review Committee. Through this representation, the Fire District is kept apprized of current development and construction activities within the County. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The Fire District is a semi-autonomous authority. The Board is empowered to levy a special tax to support its operations. Membership on the Fire Board by representatives of the County Commission provides budgetary input to the operation of the Department. Office wiith Primary Responsibility: County Administrator and Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient. Deficiencies and Needs: The fire district requires the expansion of infrastructure so as to be able to provide the services to growth areas (i.e., water supply, roads). Additional Coordinating Entities: State Department of Forestry Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been determined to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.1.4; 10.1,2.1. February 21, 2000 10 - 17 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating:Agency: St. Lucie County School District Beard Participating Entities: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie Coun~ .School ~ b_c=rd St. Lucie cOunty Library Dist~ ec~d Existing Issues or Problems: - MUlti-use of School Facilities - School Busing Zones - Program Funding - Location of New Facilities - Land Use - Administration and Collection of ao01icable School Impact Fees Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Coastal Management Infrastructure Recreation and Open Space Existing Method of Coordination: Housing Mass Traff!c ~mns~fi0n Forums for the formal coordination of issues effecting the two political bodies are limited to the Metropolitan Planning Organization - Technical Advisory Committee. Informal lines of communication exist between administrative staffs. Special joint meetings of the County Commission and School Board may be scheduled for issues of mutual community concern. When necessary, specific interlocal agreements may be entered into between the two bodies. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): No formal relationship exists between the two bodies. Contacts between Boards are generally limited with the exception of specific purpose programs. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development, Department of Recreation and Parks, and Library Board Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing rnethods of coordination are found to be sufficient. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies or needs have been identified at the present time. Additional Coordinating Entities: None Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been determined to meet current needs. Policy References: 10.1.1.4; 10.1.2.1; 10.1.3,2; 10.1.3.4. February 21, 2000 10 - 18 Intergovernmental Coordinating Agency: Participating Entities: St. Lucie County City of Ft. Pierce City of Port St, Lucie Existing Issues or Problems: - Transportation - Capital Improvements Programs Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Macs Tr=nc!t Capital Improvements ~anspo .~rtation Existing Method of Coordination: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET St. Lucie Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Future Land Use Traffic Cimulation MPO membership jointly determines how federal and state transportation dollars are to be spent locally. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The County has no authority to require that roadway improvements off of the County Road System be made except to recommend changes through their representative members of the MPO. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of. Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Through the current system, the CoUnty has coordinated all transportation decisions. Deficiencies and Needs: The existing system is found to be generally sufficient. Additional Coordinating Entitles: FDOT, FHWA, and TCRPC Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been determined to be sufficient Policy References: 10.1.1.9; 10.1.2.1; 10.1.2.2. February 21,2000 10 - 19 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Housing Authority of the City of Ft. Pierce Participating Entities: St. Lucie County City of Ft. Pierce City of Port St. ,Lucie Existing Issues or Problems: - Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Housing Future Land Use Capital Improvements Existing Method. of Coordination: The Board of CountY Commissioners has assisted the housing authority in locating a small amount of public housing and Section 8 housing units in the unincorporated area. Nature of Relationship (I.e. Authority): There is no formal representation of the County Commissioners on the Housing Authority. Office with Primary Responsibility: County Administrator, County Attomey, and ~Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: The Housing Authority has no jurisdiction in the unincorporated County. The Authority's effectiveness in the County would benefit from having their jurisdictional boundaries expanded. Deficiencies and Needs: Housing for very Iow to moderate incomer persons needs to be addressed on a county-wide basis. Also, more data are needed to define the housing problem in the County. Additional Coordinating Entitles: DCA, TCRPC, HUD, and St. Lucie County Housing Finance Authority Recommendations: Investigate the advantages and disadvantages of having the Housing Authority of Ft. Pierce expand its operation to include unincorporated areas of the County. The County shall establish a housing data base and a county-wide Housing Task Force to investigate the need for affordable housing for various income groups in the County. Policy References: 10.1.1.4. February 21,2000 10 - 20 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Participating Entities: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) Palm Beach County (including municipalities) Martin County (including municipalities) St. Lucie CoUnty (including mUnicipalities) Indian River County (including municipalities) Existing Issues or Problems: - Developments of Regional Impact - Intergovernmental Coordination Review - Environmental Issues - Comprehensive Plans Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Ail Elements Existing Method of Coordination: As a participant with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, two County Commissioners sit as voting members of the Council.: Among the duties the CounCil is charged with are the primary review of all Developments of Regional Impact and the review and monitoring of all local government comprehensive plans for consistency with the goals, objectives, and polices of the Regional Comprehensive Plan. The Council also provides mediation services between units of local government When necessary. lily I&~IiVIblIVll, VffMrVll~:;Vii &14lfllkde UVVUi._--;_.iliiM, i&ii&iiV&ii& VI f*llV ~.d&llff.ffVlf &! · Ill,lift Ib&~141flt IVII~ lllflll iiiVi~f~i~Ei~ i1klff~lVl~lllffl i&lle&tll1~llff VI Vll · .~f I~+ D;A",.,,~ C~. I ..,',;A ~'%',',,',h, +k,~ D,.~,.+ ,~n,4 AE~-~.A.,+ A..~.k,,,-"~, *k,~ I:1 ',-I I't ,~-~2 ' n.I. f'T',.,.~ f' ..~ '!' '~o , ~ + D vi I Ii · IVlVV Vii ----VlV vvl~lli &llV I vii ~1 M tlllk~Vlt I tatllVll$] lily · IVll~ IIFV~MI illlVllt VI · IMllV~VItMiIVII, · IVtM~VMIV N~ture o~ ~elstionthip (i.e. Authori~): The Ttasum Coast Regional Planning Council was created in 1976 pursuant $o Chapter 186, Florida Statu~e. Membemhip on the Council is as stipulated in this Chapter and curmnUy includes one addiUonal tpmsentaUve from St. Lucie Coun~ other than ~he ~o Coun~ Commissionem. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development. Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: The existing level of coordination has been determined to meet current needs. Deficiencies and Needs: None noteworthy. Additional Coordinating Entities: All municipalities in the above mentioned counties. Recommendations: St. Lucie County should maintain an active role in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, taking full advantage of the forum it provides for the exchange of information in the resolution of issues of regional concern. Policy References: 10.1.1.5; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.2.3; 10.1.3.2; 10.1.4.2; 10.1.4.3. February 21, 2000 10 - 21 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Treasure Coast Council of Governments Participating Entities: St. Lucie County (including cities) Martin County (inCluding. cities) Indian River County (in(~luding cities) Okeechobee County (includir~g cities) Existing Issues or Problems: - Transportation - Solid Waste/Infrastructure - Land Use - Economic Development Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements Existing Method of Coordination: Established pursuant to Chapter 163.02, Florida Statutes, this Council provides a forum for the expression and review of issues that are of a more local concern than would otherwise be reviewed at the Regional Planning Council level. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This Council is purely an advisory body. No regulatory authority has been empowered to this Council. Office with Primary Responsibility: County Administrator and County Attomey Effectiveness-of Coordination Mechanisms: Limited due to the informality of the Council's meetings and internal structure. Deficiencies and Needs: Limited effectiveness could be ovemome through using the Council as the coordinating entity for quad-county/quad-community projects. Additional Coordinating Entities: None Recommendations: The Council could be of even more benefit on a sub-regional basis if it could take the lead in establishing and maintaining regular and standard lines of communication between local governments. Policy References: 10.1.1.5; 10.1.1.6. February 21,2000 10 - 22 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency:. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Participating Entitles: (Local Only) St. Lucie County City of Ft. Pierce City of Port St, Lucie St. Lucie Village EXisting Issues or Problems: Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Infrastructure Pc.". =nd .~.':~=t!on Capital Improvements Recreation and Open Space ~ran~~ti0n Drainage and Stormwater Management Permitting Implementation of SWIM Bill (and its effect on the Indian River Lagoon/St. Lucie River estUary network) Water Quality/Quantity Wetland/Upland Protection (including inland isolated wetlands) Envir°nmen~l!ysen~itivel Lendii~cquisition Tavl0rCreek Sediment~.Transpert Future Land Use Conservation Coastal Management ·, ~,,1~ v,, v~l~lV,, Existing Method of Coordination: Local Government Assistance Program - Data Documentation Manual - Liaison by staff - Permitting through District Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): - Participates in the Review of all Developments of Regional Impact - Reviews/permits stormwater management facilities for any development greater than 10 acres Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination/communication between the County and SFWMD has been greatly improved since the District has provided a full-time liaison· Deficiencies and Needs: Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient. Additional Coordinating Entitles: A~yCO~OfEngineem ACOE and DePaAmentof EnVironmental !Protection DER - jurisdictional wetlands Recommendations: Existing methods of coordination have been determined to be sufficient. Policy References: 10·1.1·3; 10·1.1.4; 10·1.1.6; 10.1·1,7; 10·1.3·2; 10.1.4·1. February 21. 2000 10 - 23 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: U.S. Soil Conservation Service Participating Entities: St. Lucie County Soil Conservation Service Existing Issues or Problems: - Soil Stabilization - Agricultural Best Management PractiCes - Protection/Erosion Control of St. Lucie River Shoreline Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Infrastructure Coastal Management Conservation Future Land Use Existing Method of Coordination: The Soil Conservation Service is a federal entity associated with the Department of Agriculture. Coordination with the County is informal and infrequent. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The existing relationship is adequate. Office with Primary Responsibility Department of Community Development and Agricultural Extension Services Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are noted at present. Additional Coordinating Entities: SFWMD, Florida RSh'andWildlife ~- .... .,,~ =,....r, .... *"' ~ Commission, Dep~e~t:~fEnvir~n~men~l!Pr~ection OER, an~d Drainage Districts-a~l-I~NR Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been found to be sufficient to meet current needs. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10,1.1.7. February 21, 2000 10 - 24 Intergovemmental Coordinating Agency: Participating Entitles: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Department of Health. and Rehabilitative' Services Existing Issues or Problems: - HazardouS Waste - Groundwater Contamination - Wellfield Protection Affected Comprehensive Plan ~Element(s): Infrastructure Conservation Existing Method of.Coordlnatlon: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services (HRS) - Social Service Issues - Septic Permits - Air Quality Future Land Use Housing Very informal coordination exists between HRS and St. Lucie County. What coordination does take place is primarily between the County Department of COmmunity Development, and the HRS Environmental Health unit. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This is art advisory relationship. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Present coordination efforts have been determined to be sufficient at the present time. DeficienCies and Needs: No clear channels of communication exist between St. Lucie County and HRS. Additional Coordinating Entitles: Depa~meht~ironmen~ii on DER Recommendations: A cooperative education program needs to be undertaken. This should focus on informing the public about household hazardous wastes, proper disposal methods and less environmentally harmful substitutes for these products. In addition, the County should develop methods of coordination for review and comment on social issues requiring special permitting from the Department. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1,4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7. February 21,2000 10 - 25 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency Florida ~:m: ,:nd Fm:h::'=t=~ FiSh and Wildlife Commission Participating Entities St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Florida ~=m= :nd Frc:h:;:=t=r Fish and Wildlife Commission Existing Issues or Problems - Protection of Endangered Species ." ?Environmental!y~Sensitive ~hdAcquisition Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s) Coastal Management Pc.t Conservation Future Land Use ~ransp0~tiOn Existing Method of Coordination: Infrequent, informal staff communications for the purpose of exchanging, information. Nature of Relationship (i.e, Authority): The Game and Freshwater Fish Commission conducts a periodic survey to determine endangered or threatened species. However, the County is not actively involved in this. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: The existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient in meeting the present needs. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are Presently found in the methods~of coordination. Additional Coordinating Entities: h~i'men~i? n ~ and US Fish & Wildlife Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been determined sufficient to meet present needs. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7. February 21,2000 10 - 26 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Participating Entities: Rodda Department of Environmental ProtectiOn (DEP) Rsgu!=t!cn (DER) St, Lucia County Board of County Commissioners Department of ~nvir°nmental ~3te~ion Re~llatie,q Existing Issues or Problems: - Mangrove Protection - Solid Waste Disposal - Sewage Disposal - Wellfieid Protection - Wetlands EncroaChments (Tidal & Non-tidal) - Water Quality ~idal & Non-tidal) ,Envir°nmen~l!Y isensitivel' ~nd AcquisitiOn - Dredge & Fill - Hazardous Waste - Potable & Nonpotable Water - Air quality Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Coastal Management Future Land Use Ports and Aviation Infrastructure Conservation Existing Method of Coordination: Coordination between the DePa~entof Envimnmen~l protection DER and St. Lucie County is generally informal, limited to administrative contacts. ' Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This is an advisory relationShip, assisting in the implementation of State and local regulations. ThrOUgh~:the S~te~s portant ~funding :partner in~ the Counts effortsto:~ Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be generally sufficient in meeting present needs. Deficiencies and Needs: None noted. Additional Coordinating Entitles: Army Corps of Engineers, U.S, Wildlife Service, EPA, SFWMD, HRS, Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority, Flonda' ~a.,...;: ........... a"'~ =rcs.~'.'.'.'a.~* Fish andWildiife ~ommission and Depa~ent0fE~ironmen~l Pr0te~on DNR Reoommendations: A cooperative education and public relations program informing the public of environmental regulations and programs would be beneficial. In addition, a local government liaison, such as provided by SFWMD, might be beneficial in reducing unnecessary delays. Policy References: 10.1.1,3; 10,1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 27 Intergovemmental - --.:ach .~..-'c::: .. - Sp'c~ - Sa':=nr'.-~ Pr__.~gr:e. - - Parks & Rccr~at~cn:~ Land · v, · ~,v~,, ,~ ,-,v~M,~v ,,,,~v~, · .MI1 Ccn:=r:=t~on FUtur= '_=nd 'J~ kl~d...]P,& ,.k41 DAlal. l,.~neki..k Ii -., IlUiliv vi I .Vllk~ilVllVlllrJr ~.IVl Vlll,mlffl~ lqlffl, lll i iiiiiqMi; · iVMrlffq~llql~llllffllli;I IIIVVSIEVIikEM VI VVEI MIIIMIIVll II/IVVlIUllIVlIIVI ,Ncn: February 21,2000 10 - 28 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Participating Entities: St, Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Department of Community Affair~ Existing Issues or Problems: - Update of Comprehensive Plan - Areas of Critical State Concerns - Developments of: Regional Impact - Community Development Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements Existing Method, of Coordination: The County is required to coordinate its Comprehensive Plan, development regulations, and DRI's with DCA. Nature of Relationship (i.e. AuthoritY): DCA has review and approval authority over the County's Comprehensive Plan and DRI's.-Th= DC.~.'= Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Methods of coordination between the County and DCA need improvement. One problem is the physical distance between the County and Tallahassee which can cause a misunderstanding of lOCal needs and issues. Deficiencies and Needs: There is need for greater understanding of local concerns. DCA needs to be more responsive to the local government structure and issues. Additional Coordinating Entities: TCRPC and all adjacent municipalities and counties Recommendations: DCA should establish a local government liaison using the program piloted by SFWMD as an example. POlicy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7. February 21, 2000 10 - 29 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Participating Entitles: St. LuCie County Board of County Commissioners Department of Transportation Existing Issues or Problems: - Improvement of the Transportation Network "'"U'' '""'1~'''~'''""" - Bureau of Aviation ~ Alternat~'!Rai/$ystems - Airport Expansion · vi · I...~,~I~i,~1 ,,.~,v,, Affectedl Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Tmff!c C;.rc,.:,!=t!cr. TranS~pe' ~tion .¥.=sc Trc.-.c!t Capital Improvements Existing Method of Coordination: FDOT maintains staff liaison: -Through MPO and Department of Community Development for transportation planning; - Through Public Works Department for construction and design; - Through the St. Lucie Port and Airport Authority for issues pertaining to them. The Port and Airport Authority will establish a task force to deal with land use compatibility issues should there be an expansion of the function, operation and geographic area of the airport. This task fome will include representatives of St. Lucie Village, the City of Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie County, the Port and Airport Authority, the Florida Department of Transportation, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and the Federal Aviation Administration. Nature of Relationship. (i.e. Authority): FDOT has authority over MPO and is responsible for the primary transportation facilities in the County. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development, Department of Public Works and St. Lucie MPO Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination is found to be lacking at times due to FDOT unresponsiveness to local issues. Coordination is hampered by the lack of a local FDOT planning office. DeficienCies and Needs: The allocation of funds for improvements and the timing of construction is unresponsive to local needs. There is a need for a local FDOT planning office. Additional Coordinating Entitles: MPO Recommendations: Improved communication and open a local FDOT planning office. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1~,1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.1.9; 10.1.4.3. February 21,.2000 10 - 30 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) Participating Entities: ' ' St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners City of Ft. Pierce Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority Existing Issues or Problems: - Expansion of Water and Sewer System Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Infrastructure Exlsting Method of Coordination: Informal coordination exists between FPUA and St. Lucie County. Existing coordination is primarily between the County Public Works Department and FPUA'prior to County construction projects, Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): No formal relationship exists between the two entities. Review and permitting procedures handled on project by project basis. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No serious deficiencies are found at the present in coordination between St. Lucie County and FPUA. Additional Coordinating Entities: City of Ft. Pierce Recommendations: Existing levels of coordination have been found to be sufficient. However, consideration needs to be given to the inclusion of the FPUA in the County's Development Review Committee in order to minimize any long term utility/development conflicts. P011cy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.3.2. February 21, 2000 10 - 31 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), University of Florida, Population Program Participating Entitles: St. Lucie Coun~ Board Of County Commissioners Bureau of Business & Economic Research Existing Issues :or Problems: - Population Growth and Projection - Land Use Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements Existing Method .of Coordination: The County receives publications from BEBR on population projections. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): BEBR publishes official state population figures for Florida. St. Lucie County has been approved by.the DCA to use the high population figures in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of 'Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencieS are found at the present in coordination between St. Lucie County and BEBR. Additional Coordinating Entitles: State of Florida Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy References: No Specific Policy ReferenceS February 21, 2000 10 - 32 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Participating Entities: St. LUcie County Board of County Commissioners Environmental 15roteCtion Agency Existing Issues or Problems: - Land Use - Environmental Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Coastal Management Conservation Po.t, =~d .~.':!=t~'-,,~ Transportation Existing Method of Coordination: The County complies with all the state environmental regulations which in turn comply with all the federal regulations. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): Regulatory as charged by the Congress of the United States. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are found at the present time in the indirect coordination between St. Lucie County and EPA. Additional Coordinating Entities: HRS and lDepa:~me~tiofEngiron~h~iip ibn OER Recommendations: ' Existing methods of coordination have been found to meet current needs. Expand as needed. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1,1.7. February 21,2000 10 - 33 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Participating Entities: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners US ArmY Corp of Engineers Existing Issues or Problems: - Environmental Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Infrastructure Coastal Management Conservation Pc,t. =nd TransPO. rtation Existing Method of' Coordination: Informal coordination exists between the ACOE and St. Lucie County. Existing coordination is primarily between the Department of Community Development and the ACOE concerning dredge/fill and dOck permits. Nature of Relationship (I.e. Authority) Regulatory as charged by the Congress of the United States. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness, of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are found at the present in coordination between St. Lucie County and USACOE. Additional Coordinating Entities: Depa~ment'°fEnvironmentaI-Protec~ion DER, ~ EPA and SFWMD Recommendations: Existing coordination is found robe sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 34 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Participating Entitles: St. Lucie Metropolitan Planning Organization Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Existing Issues or Problems: - Transportation Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): , "~Transportation ,Tm,_ff!c C~rcu~=t!cn .M=~ Tm,-,cit Existing Method of Coordination: Administrative/regulatory, through the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Nature o! Relationship (i,e. Authority): This is a regulatory relationship. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development and MPC Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are 'found. to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: None noted. Additional Coordinating Entities: FDOT, UMTA and St. Lucia County Recommendations: Maintain existing levels of contact. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6. February 21, 2000 10 -35 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Participating Entitles: St, Lucie Metmpolitan~ Planning Organization Urban Mass Transportation Administration Existing Issues or Problems: - Transportation Disadvantaged - Transportation - Alternate Transportation Modes Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Transpo .rta* fion · · ~,~,,~,.. Mass Transit Existing Method of Coordination: Administrative/regulatory, through the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Nature of Relationship (i,e, Authority): This is an advisory/regulatory relationship. Office with Primary Responsibility: ~Department of Community Development and MPO Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: None noted. Additionall Coordinating Entities: FDOT, FHWA, TCRPC and St. Lucie County Recommendations: Maintain existing levels of contact, Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6. Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) February 21, 2000 10 - 36 Intergovernmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Southem Bell Telephone Participating Entitles: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Southem Bell Telephone Existing Issues or Problems: - Population Growth - Providing Services Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Trans~rtation Tr=ff!c C~:c'.'!=t!cn Infrastructure Existing-Method of Coordination: Very informal coordination exits between Southern Bell and St, Lucie County. Existing contacts are primarily with the Public Works Department concerning County construction projects and telephone line locations. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This is an informal relationship. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: · Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are found at the present time in coordination between St. Lucie County and Southern Bell. Additional Coordinating Entities: None Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.3.2. February 21, 2000 10 ' 37 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Florida Power and Light (FP&L) ParticiPating Entities: St. LuCie County Board of County Commissioners Florida Power & Light Existing Issues or ProblemS: - Population Growth - Providing Services Affecte¢l Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Infrastructure ~s~rtatiOn T:=ffjc Existing Method of Coordination: Informal coordination exits between FP&L and' St. Lucie County. Existing points of contact are found between the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This is an informal relationship. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at -the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are found at the present time in coordination between St. Lucie County and FP&L. Additional Coordinating Entities: None Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.3.2. February 21, 2000 10 - 38 Intergovernmental Coordinating Agency: Participating Entitles: St. Lucie County' Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie County Water and Sew'er Authority' Existing Issues or Problems: - Population Growth - Providing Services Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Infrastructure Future Land Use Existing Method,of Coordination: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET St. Lucie County Water and Sewer Authority (SLCW&SA) - Regulation of Utility Companies The Water and Sewer Authority isa body charged with reviewing and approving the rates that may be charged by non-public utility operations. The Board of County Commissioners acts as an appeal Board to the authority in matters that need further review. Nature of RelatiOnship (i.e. Authority): The authority is a semi-autonomous body, with appointment to it made by the Board of County Commissioners. Office with Primary Responsibility: County Administrator and County Attorney Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient. Deficiencies and Needs: None. Additional Coordinating Entities: HRS and Departmenti:ofEn~i~onmen~!iprotection DER Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy References: No Specific Policy References February 21, 2000 10 - 39 Intergovernmental AlklA! VC~IC~ tlqmiDk'C2u~,~,' ........... ;; ..... ~, .'---- t YYVl illlillll 'lrlltlt~¥llVJr I .Vt, ;;VIV VV~I Il& . VIS IIii1~1 I11dl ~'l~l!~ill~l ·Al I'l'h~"k~-'|]r t¥&i IVl l& D~l'~lAJr~li~n l~rli|)IAe. · I1 IlJl v i IJru Ilkl I i~ .,i,1,.~. i-q,,iVlV v.,..,l,.ll l,., i vi · ..,,41 l~w..,Il vi · · ,u.~.~..vi '~ll/le k~llVlV VVllkll ii] VVliJ&l M VI VVq/MI lib] VVl S !1 · ll~lfflVl lVl~m/dY .--Po~.'t. IAIIEWIIIIII~ IIIIVJl IVTM 111ffl ~l~i~lrl 'WIIIIEIEiIIVlll VllI~ Illlllri I Illll#l IIVV yllVlilflllli l i,...,~.,i..,.1 ~ vi VV,l,.,...,.,] VVl.....iv,k..... ·lil, llVd~r I IVlVl vi i~____t Ivi. i i ]ale February 21, 2000 10 - 40 Intergovernmental COordinating Agency: Participating Entitles: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control DiStrict (FP Farms WCD) Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control District St. Lucie Coun~'BOard of County Commissioners Existing Issues Or Problems: - Drainage - Land Use Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Infrastructure - Water Conservation - Irrigation Conservation Existing Method of Coordination: Most activities are coordinated through the Department of Public Works. Nature of Relationship (i,e, Authority): The Ft. Pierce Farms Water COntrol District is a taxing body that is concerned with drainage, conservation of water and control of water levels to provide water for irrigation of lands within the District. The Distdct is primarily an agricultural purpose district that, because of development activities, is converting into a more urban drainage district. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are noted at the present time. Additional Coordinating Entities: SFWMD and North St. Lucie River Water Control District Recommelldations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy References: 10.1.4.1. February 21, 2000 10-41 Intergovernmental Coordinating Agency: Participating Entities: North St. Lucie River Water Control District St.: Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Existing Issues or Problems: - Drainage - Land Use Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Infrastructure Existing Method of Coordination.. ANALYSIS WORKSHEET North St. Lucie River Water Control District (NSLRWCD) - Water Conservation - Irrigation Conservation Most activities are coordinated through the Department of Public Works. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): The North St. Lucie River Water Management District is a taxing body that is concerned with drainage, conservation of water and control of water levels to provide. Water for irrigation of lands within the District. The District is primarily an agricultural purpose district that, because of development activities, is converting into a more urban drainage district. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No deficiencies are noted at the present time. Additional Coordinating Entitles: SFWMD and Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control District Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy Refe~rences: 10.1.4.1. February 21,2000 10 - 42 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating. Agency: Port St. Lucie~ Utilities. G~n=r=! -........ n .... ,,,p~,"*........ i' ............'~;"~"° ( ~ ...-DU) Participating Entities: Existing Issues ~or Problems: - Expansion of Water and Sewer System Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Infrastructure Existing Method of Coordination: Informal coordination exists between Portst.-,rlLUcieUtilities ~ and St. Lucie County. Existing coordination is primarily between the County' Public Works Department and POrt St..LuCie Utilities GDU prior to County construction projects. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): No formal relationship exists between the two entities. Review and permitting procedures handled on project by project basis. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Public Works Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present time. Deficiencies and Needs: No serious deficiencies are found at the present in coordination between St. Lucie County and 'port St..LuCie .Utilities GDU. Additional Coordinating Entities: ~ St. Lucie County Water & Sewer Authority Recommendations: .Existin?- I~t~i~'~''',j° "f ~""' '""'"" .~ ~jd~,~,l~n :ho~aVe been found to be sufficient. However, consideration need be ,ven to the, ' i.~, ,' St;!Luci*~" ii ', ' C unty's DeveloPment Review Committee in order to minimize any Igong term util~lt~eS~/°e~o~mtheen~Orr conflicts ~ POlicy References: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.7; 10.1.3.2. February 21, 2000 10 - 43 Intergovemmental ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Coordinating Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Participating Entitles: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Pc,_,* ~,-,~ A ;,.p,,,./ A, Existing Issues or Problems: Airport Operations Affected COmprehensive Plan Element(s): Transportation Existing Method of Coordination: Formal coordination exists between the FAA and the Sti~,~Lu~ie~oun~:rB0ar~d~Of?i~0uh~ i~ioners Nature of Relationship(i.e. Authority}: This is a formal relationship with the FAA supervising airport operations. Office with Primary Responsibility: Airport Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient. Deficiencies and Needs: None noted. Additional Coordinating Entitles: FDOT Recommendations: Existing coordinatiOn is found to be sufficient. Policy References: 10,1.4.3. February 21, 2000 Intergovernmental COOrdinating Agency: Participating Entities: St. Lucie County Board of County Oommissioners Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources Existing IssUes or Problems: - Protection of Historical Resources Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Housing Existing Method of COOrdination: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources · . Conservation The Division.of Historical Resources provides planning and technical assistance, assists local communities with their historic preservation efforts by helping them identi~, evaluate and maintain or mitigate damage to significant historical resources. Pro~ects with any state or federal involvement (CDBG, airports, RI s, etc.) must be submitted for review to determine the effects the projects may have on significant historical resources. D ' Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This is an advisory relationship. Office with Primary Responsibility: Department of Community DevelOpment Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be generally sufficient in meeting present needs. Deficiencies and Needs: None note(]. Additional Coordinating Entitles: None. Recommendations: Existing coordination is ~found to be sufficient. Policy Reference: 10.1.1.3; 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1.7. February 21, 2000 10 - 45 Intergovemmental Coordinating Agency: · Participating Entities: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Florida DivisiOn of Forestry, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services St. Lucie ~County Board of COunty Commissioners Fla. DiVision of Forestry, Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services Existing Issues or Problems: Conservation Land Use Wildland Fire Protection Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): Future Land Use Conservation Coastal Management Recreation & Open Space Existing Method of Coordination: St. Lucie County contracts annually with the Florida Division of Forestry, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the assistance of a professional urban forester as well as wildland~fire protection. A small portion of the urban forester's salary is paid by the cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County. The County Agriculture Extension office provides office space for the urban forester. Nature of Relationship (i.e. Authority): This is an advisory relationship. The urban forester is available to assist ali residents of St. Lucie County. Office witlh Primary Responsibility: Department of Community Development Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient in meeting present needs. Deficiencies and Needs: None noted. Additional Coordinating Entities: City of Ft. Pierce and the City of Port St. Lucie Recommendations: Existing coordination is found to be sufficient. Policy Reference: 10.1.1.4; 10.1.1.6; 10.1.1,7. Throu. efforts Environmental ~Protecti°n iSan important fundingpartner in?ffie County's February 21,2000 10 - 46 Intergovernmental RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ST. LUCIE COUNTY INTRODUCTION The Recreation and Open Space Element presents a review of the current recreation facilities and opportunities in St. Lucie County and includes Level of Service Standards and Goals, Objectives and POlicies designed to assist the County in meeting the future recreation needs of its residents and visitors. RecreatiOncontributefacilities are important components of acommunity' 's physical development pattern. They to the attractiveness of the area, as well as the health and well-being of its citizens. St. Lucie County's loCation along the Atlantic Ocean provides abundant water-oriented recreational opportunities. However, it is important that the County provide and maintain a range of recreational facilities and open space areas for all persons having diverse recreational interests and needs, and not focus all of its efforts on water and water related activities. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT CONDITIONS The St. Lucie CoUnty Leisure Services Department operates facilities and conducts programs throughout the County. These activities are conducted at County-owned recreational facilities which are under the management of the Leisure Services Department. Several park facilities within the City of Ft. Pierce are under the maintenance responsibility of the City; however, program administration has, through an interlocal agreement, been delegated to the County. The City of Port St. Lucie operates and maintains their own Park facilities and programs. In addition to the local facilities, the State of Florida owns/operates/administers considerable recreational acreage within the County. Additional recreation opportunities are available at various school sites within the County. In one instance, joint facilities have been developed. In other cases, the public may use school facilities during non-school hours without any formal agreements in place. Current Classification System Recreational facilities in St. Lucie County have in the past been loosely grouped into the following categories: o Beach Access o Beach Park o Community Park o Environmental Land o Neighborhood Park o Regional Park o Special Facility March 6, 2000 9-1 RECREATION Inventory of Existing ,Facilities Table 9-1 summarizes existing recreation and open space facilities owned, operated, and maintained by St. Lucie County, as well as those facilities operated by the State of Florida within the County. The loCation of the facilities listed in Table 9-1 is indicated on Map 9-1. This inventory was compiled by the St. LuCie County Department of Leisure Services and the St. Lucie County Depanment of Community Development. Table 9-1 further classifies these recreational facilities as either resource or activity based or both. Resource based facilities are those recreation facilities which are based on a natural, historic, or archaeological resource. These facilities usually offer relatively passive forms of.recreation, such as hiking, museum or historic site tours, etc. Activity based recreation facilities usually have specific facilities for active recreation, such as athletic fields, ball diamonds, tennis courts, or swimming access points. As Table 9-1 indicates, St. Lucie County contains 7498 acres of activity based recreation and open space lands. Regional resource based parks, which include the beach accesses, beach parks, and Environmentally Significant Lands purchased pursuant to the 1994 bond issue, total 7619 acres, The EnvironmentallY Significant Lands program has been responsible for the acquisition of 11,668 acres of land in St, Lucie County. Ownership of and responsibility for the management of the recreational lands in St. Lucie County falls to a mixture of state and local agencies. These County facilities are supplemented by city facilities as shown in Table 9-2 and Map 9-2 for the City of Ft. Pierce and Table 9-3 for the city of Port St. Lucie The State of Florida owns five major parks in St. Lucie County. These are: o Jack Island State Park (958.0 acres) o Ft. Pierce Inlet State Recreation Area (250.0 acres) o Avalon Tract (571 acres) o South Savannas (4855 acres) o John Brooks Park (406.8 acres) March 6, 2000 9-2 RECREATION Map 9-'1 Recreational Facilities March 6, 2000 9-5 RECREATION City Parks No. ® ® ® ® e ® 0 e 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Park Tax Information Acreage Avalon Beach Access None(Recorded Street) 0.22 Acres Coconut Drive Park 2507-321-0001-010/8 0.77 Acres Coon Island Bird San. 1435-431-0001-000/0 30.67 Acres Martin Luther King Park 2408-801-0032-000/0 Blk 3 17.40 Acres 2408-801-0051-000/9 Blk 4 2408-801-0076-000/0 Blk 5 2408-801-0100'000/8 Blk 6 Fairway Drive Park 2421-801-0058-000/9 0.19 Acres Garden Center 2415-601-0305-000/3 4.45 Acres ~Goodwin Botanical Park 2409-444-0002-000/9 3.70 Acres Gulfstream Beach Crossing None (Recorded Street) 0.28 Acres Hayes Road Park 2415-601-0087-000/8 0.35 Acres Hil~, Court Recreation 2415-133-0001-000/6 4.55 Acres Indian River Memorial 2403-801-0025-000/3 2403-801-0026-000/0 15.66 Acres Jaycee Park 2412-501-0001-000/6 17.16 Acres Jetty' Park 1436-343-0001-000/3 1.80 Acres Kimberly Bergalis Park 2401-434-0003-000/1 2.18 Acres Melody Lane Park 2410-510-0001-000/8 0.46 Acres Iolus Elis Park 2404-143'0001-000/3 16.02 Acres Maintence 0.00 Acres 0.05 Acres 0.00 Acres 14.16 Acres 0.090 Acres 4.28 Acres 2.63 Acres 0.02 Acres 0.28 Acres 4.55 Acres 9.22 Acres 9.50 Acres 0.73 Acres 0.50 Acres 0.36 Acres 10.85 Acres 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Pinecrest Subdivision Park 2417-515-0007-000/6 2417-515-0008.000/3 2417-51~-0009-000/0 2417'515-0010-000/0 2417-515-0011-000/7 Pinewood Park 2415-601-0071-000/3 Pioneer Park 2404-608-0098-000/5 Porpose Beach Crossing 2401-502-0009-000/1 Rotary Park 2416-504-0765-000/0 St. Lucie Beach Access None (Recorded Street) Savannahs 2435-411-0001-000/1 2435-141-0004-000/4 2426'342-0001-000/2 2426-221-0001-000/0 2435-121-0001-000/1 Surfside Park 2401-434-0003-000/1 South 8th Street Park 2410-704-0007-000/5 North 10th Street Park. 2409-513-0001-000/3 South 29th Street Park 2417-506-0001.000/6 1.98 Acres 3.69 Acres 8.80 Acres 0.20 Acres 5.50 Acres 0.23 Acres 467.33 Acres 2.50 Acres 0.72 Acres 1.44 Acres 1.92 Acres 1.75 Acres 3.25 Acres 8.04 Acres 0.02 Acres 4.67 Acres 0.00 Acres 0.00 Acres 0.50 Acres 0.69 Acres 1.28 Acres 1.64 Acres AIRPORT ST. LUCIE BLVD. GE D 16 -3 LEGEND CITY SIDE~ CITY PARKS , - 'PARK INDEX :SOUTH 8TH STREET PARK DREAMLAND PARK FAIRWAY PARK 4.GLIDDEN PARK §. GOODWIN PARK HAYES ROAD PARK 7.ILous ELLIS PARK 8.JAYCEE PARK 9.JETTY PARK 10, KIMBERLY BERGALIS PARK II.~MELODY LANE RIVER~ALK PARK lZ, NORTH lOTH STREET PARK 13. PINECREST PARK 14~ PINEWOOD PARK 15: PIONEE~ PARK ~ lB; ROTARy PARK lVJ SOUTH '29TH STREET PARK 18. SURFSiDE PARK , F[LE BAR Ol/D~N/PRRK$/PARK$~-$t4~L.$¢N.E, D~N' O~ Ho. g?'02-000-013 Total: TABLE 9-3 OTHER PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IN PORT ST. LUCIE ,Facility Name ACreage Sportsman's Park 16.0 PSL Rec Center 1.0 Swan Park 6.5 Harborview Park 4.8 Jaycee Park 6.2 Kiwanis Park 3.8 Rotary Park 5.5 Lyngate Park 16.0 Doat Street Park 2.4 Rivergate Park 28.0 Loyalty Park 0.7 Windmill Park 6.0 Regional Park 200.0 Thomhill Park 20.9 PSL Community Center IRCC 4.0 321.8 March 6, 2000 9-8 RECREATION Open Spaces: Several of the recreation facilities mentioned above have been classified as including open space areas. Open space areas are undeveloped lands suitable for passive recreation or conservation uses. In 1994 the citizens of St. Lucie County approved a 20 million dollar bond issue to purchase environmentally significant lands for preservation and passive recreational uses. The County has been able to leverage that amount into 40 to 60 million dollars of purchasing power, primarily through funding partnerships with state agencies funded through the P2000 program. Significant areas have been purchased along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, on Hutchinson Island, in the Savannas, and in the western portion of the County. These areas are listed in Table 9-1. The Indian River Lagoon, from Vero Beach to Jensen Beach, (exclusive of the Port of Ft. Pierce), and the North Fork of the St. Lucie River are identified as Outstanding Florida Waters. These bodies of water represent a vitally unique resource/activity based recreation resource to the community. For the purposes of this element these areas are considered as open space. Further elaboration on them in regard to their environmental and economic influences on the community can be found in the Coastal Management and Conservation Elements of this Comprehensive Plan. School Facilities: The playgrounds and sports activity areas found at the community's schools provide excellent recreation opportunities on a neighborhood service level. The St. Lucie County School Board operates 32 schools; five high schools, five middle schools, and 19 elementary schools. In addition, there are three exceptional education centers. Public access to the high school grounds and their potential for use as recreational facilities is presently restricted due' to security fencing but could be made available for the public. With the exception of a few sites within the City of Ft. Pierce, other County School Facilities are not fenced leaving their open areas available ~or public use during non-school hours. St. Lucie County and the School Board have constructed lighted tennis and basketball facilities as well as a lighted softball/little league field at the White City Elementary School Site. Through the construction of the new White City sChool, the field was shortened so that uSe as a softball field is not recommended. The field is adequate for little league practice. These facilities are utilized by the students during the school hours and are then available to the general public for league softball and other activities. Primary maintenance of the recreation facilities is the responsibility of the County. Development of school parks such as this represents a viable, land efficient method for meeting the community's neighborhood park needs. March 6, 2000 9-9 RECREATION Other Primary Recreation Facilities: Golf courses are an important component in the recreational actiVities of both resident and visitor to the South Florida region. There is presently one public golf course (Fairwinds)in the County. There are also 12 private golf courses which, depending upOn the season, permit general public play. Table 9-4 identifies the existing golf courses and whether public play is permitted. The St. Lucie Sports Complex, located in Port St. Lucie, and the auditorium at Indian River Community College in Ft. Pierce are under the special facility category. These facilities are available to the public, through leasing agreements, for concerts, special promotion events, productions, bali camps and Other sporting events. In addition to public facilities, St. Lucie County has a number of large developments that have private recreational facilities such as golf courses, tennis c'ourts, pools, and trails. Most residential development projects that use the Planned Unit Development zoning furnish some type of recreational facilities for their residents. These facilities satisfy some proportion of the total recreation demand for the residents of these communities. March 6' 2000 9-10 RECREATION Course Name Spanish Lakes 1 Spanish Lakes Golf Village Spanish Lakes County Club Village Savannah Club PantherwOod Club Med Harbour Ridge PGA Village Island Dunes Indian Pines Indian Hills Fairwinds # Holes 18 18 18 36 36 72 18 18 18 TABLE 9-4 ST. LUCIE COUNTY GOLF COURSES Public Private Seasonal · 1' Seasonal play denotes short term memberships (summer or winter) and the ability to play the course on a daily greens fee only basis. Membership not always required but nonmembers must defer to members for scheduling of available time. 2~ Course developed in conjunction with private residential community. Course operation not always associated With reSidential developments, however access to clubhouse facility often through security controlled community entrance. Source' St. Lucie County Leisure Services and Community Development Departments March 6, 2000 9-11 RECREATION NEEDS ANALYSIS Service pOpulation Projections' St. Lucie County has not conducted any surveys on the present demand for recreation and open space facilities. In order to assess the present need for these facilities, ratios have been used which are based in part upon national and in part upon the desired standards of the St. Lucie County Recreation Advisory Board. Population estimates and projections for St. Lucie County from the year 1990 to 2010 are shown in Table 9-5. For the purposes of this Plan, the future recreation demand relative to neighborhood and community parks are based upon the unincorporated County population only. The future recreation demand relative to regional facilities and open space is based upon the County population as a whole. However, it is recognized that interlocal agreements and coordination between the CoUnty and the Cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie will enhance the recreational opportunities for residents throughout the County. TABLE 9-5 1990 AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS FOR UNINCORPORATED ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FT. PIERCE, PORT ST. LUCIE, AND ST. LUCIE VILLAGE [Unincorporated uoi.e_. llage [ Total Estimated 1997 Population 63,058 37,484 77,985 6O6 179,133 Projected 2005 POpulation Projected 2010 Population 70,951 76,246 37,210 37,097 111,571 130,452 602 594 220,334 244,389 Source: 97 Florida Estimates of Population - University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research and Shimburg Center for Affordable Housing March 6, 2000 9-12 RECREATION As Table 9-5 indicates, the total COunty-wide permanent population is expected to increase from 179,133 in 1997 to 244,389 by the year 2010, an increase of 36.4%. The unincorporated areas of the County are expected to account.for 31.5% of the total population. However, in the short term planning period from 1997 to 2005, the unincorporated County population is expected to climb from 63,058 to 70,951, an increase of 12.5%. It should be noted, that for the purpose of this Plan, only the permanent population estimates are being utilized. Seasonal population influences on the County's recreational services have historically occurred when the local demand/use for those facilities is at its lowest. Stated simply, the local popUlation does not use the beach a lot in the winter and the seasonal visitor does not use the softball fields in the summer. So long as this trend continues, and St. Lucie County foresees no changes in the seasonal visitation patterns for this area, the permanent population estimates will be those utilized for determining facility needs. Recommended Classification System In November, 1987, the St. Lucie County Recreation Advisory Board developed an updated classification system for recreational space. Except for the elimination of the mini or pocket park, the County is not prOposing changes to the eXisting system. Mini parks are difficult and expensive to maintain. Existing mini parks have been included in the neighborhood or beach access category as appropriate. The classification system provides the basis for determining future level of service standards. The system as approved by the Recreation Advisory Board has three major categories which in turn have been further broken down into subcategories as follows: Local Recreation Spaces: Recreational facilities that serve a limited population size and that are located close to residential areas. me Neighborhood Recreation Area: Area for intense and diverse recreational activities which may include, but are not limited to, field games, court games, sportfields, playground apparatus areas, picnic areas, landscaping and gardens, or senior citizen areas, and having a service area radius of .5 miles and a desirable size of 5 acres. Bo Community Recreation Area: An area that provides a diverse range of recreational and leisure activities or contains areas of environmental or aesthetic quality, and that has a service area radius of 10 miles and a desirable size of 10 acres. Facilities and activities may include, but are not limited to, athletic fields, swimming pools, gymnasiums, performing and design art centers, crafts buildings, and any facilities associated with neighborhood or mini-park recreation areas. March 6, 2000 9-13 RECREATION II. Ill. Reeional Recreation Spaces: Area of aesthetic or: natural quality that are designed to serve a regional or metropolitan population. mi Regiona~etropolitan Recreation Area: Area providing facilities designed for outdoor recreation and leisure activities that may include, but are not limited to, boating, fishing, or camping; bicycle, hiking, or horse trail systems; botanical gardens, nature centers, or zoo or husbandry centers; museums; performing and design art centers; and activities included under community neighborhood, or mini-park recreation ~eas. Area typically has a service area of 60 miles and a desirable size of 100 acres. Be Outdoor Reserve Recreation Area: Area primarily designed with consideration for outdoor.recreation and nature preservation, including, but not limited to, areas for viewing and studying land, aquatic, or avian wildlife, conservation activities, swimming, hiking, camping, trail facilities, nature centers, or botanical gardens. Area typically has a service area radius of 60 miles and a desirable size of 500 acres, with the majority of the area preserved and managed in its natural environment. Unique Recreation Spaces, Either l~ocal or Regional: Spaces developed for unique recreational activities or for a single recreational activity. me Special Recreation Areas/Facilities- Areas designed for a single purpose or specific recreational and leisure activities that may include, but are not limited to, activities such as zoos, conservatories, golf courses, gun or archery ranges, outdoor theaters, historic sites, marinas, botanical gardens, athletic complexes, or water sports. The service area and desirable facility size may vary. Be Conservation/Open Space Area: Area preserved and managed to protect its natural environment or aesthetic quality, or to protect health, safety, and welfare by providing open spaces between roadways or development, with recreation and leisure activity serving as a secondary function. Ce Linear Recreation Area: Area developed to provide travel routes for one or more types of recreational or human-operated vehicles, such as horseback tiding, bicycling, hiking, jogging, or motorcross tiding. D, Waterfront Recreation Area: Area that is designed primarily for aquatic-related recreation and leisure activities and that abuts rivers, lakes lagoons, or saltwater bodies. ' March 6, 2000 o Beach Access Area: Area developed to provide access to waterfront areas. 9-14 RECREATION Service area and desirable park size can vary. 2~ Activity Area: Waterfront area providing recreation and leisure activities or facilities that may include, but are not limited to, swimming, water sports, boating, sunbathing, picnicking, playground apparatus, dressing rooms and showers, boat ramps and docks, boardwalks and pavilions, or concession stands. Level of Service Standards In order to establiSh an appropriate level of service standard for each class of facility, national standards and standards for other communities in southeast Florida were reviewed. Integral to the level of service is the base year population on which to set the service standard. For the purpose of this Plan, the year 1997 has been established as the base year. The estimated 1997 population, as provided by the St. Lucie County Department of Community Development, for the identified recreational facilities is as follows' FACILITY TYPE Neighborhood Park Community Park Regional Park . , SERVICE POPULATION 52,280 52,280 128,541 The extent to which level of service standards are met for the current population was determined, as was the demand for additional facilities to serve the projected populations for the initial planning period ending in the year 2005 and the second planning period ending in the Year 2015. The results of this analysis serve as the basis for the determination of future recreation demand. The methods of funding the short term needs, 2005, are addressed in the Capital Improvements Element. Table 9-6 indicates the desired level of service standards for recreational facilities in St. Lucie County. Asa guide in planning recreation and open space standards, it is imperative that a basic determination be made as to the leVel of service considered to be appropriate, desirable, and affordable by a given community. Such level of service standards represent a significant policy statement within the Comprehensive Plan and provide an orderly basis for a land acquisition and facility development program which responds to increases in a community's population. March 6, 2000 9-15 RECREATION TABLE 9-6 DESIRED OUTDOOR RECREATION STANDARDS FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY Facility Local: Standard Per Site Service Area 1000 Population Size Radius Persons Served Neighborhood Parks .5 acres 5.0 acres 0.5 miles up to 5,000 Community Parks 5.0 acres 10.0 acres 10.0 miles up to 4,000 Regional: Regional Parks 5.0 acres 100 acres 60 miles no standard Open Space Reserves no standard 500 acres 60 miles no standard Special Purpose: Special Recreation Areas/FaCilities Conservation/Open Space Areas Linear Recreation Areas Beach Access Beach Park Waterfront Activity Area Source: St. Lucie County Department of Community Development no standards no standards no standards no standards no standards no standards March 6, 2000 9-16 RECREATION TABLE 9-7 RECOMMENDED PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD March 6, 2000 9-1-7 RECREATION RECREATION GOALS, ~OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES The following Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies are modifications of the portions of the Element as adopted in 1990, The numbering system is consistent with the 1990 plan and, in order to facilitate the public hearing process, will not be modified until this plan is ready for submission to the Department of Community Affairs is recommended for addition, o ..... ,_ ,, ....... ,_ . _ ou u~,v. uuvu~3~ iii&tei'i~u is recommended for deletion. Double underlined material was recommended by the Local Planning Agency. Material indicated by italics has been recommended by a member of the public. These reconmaendations are included verbatim. Each will be notated with its source and staff comments. GOAL 9.1. PROVIDE ADEQUATE RECREATION FACILITIES AND OPEN SPACE AREAS WHICH OFFER A BROAD RANGE OF ACTIVITIES TO ALL CITIZENS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY. OBJECTIVE 9.1.1: Active and passive recreation facilities, and open space areas for the residents of St. Lucie County shall be provided ina manner so as to comply with the level of service standards set forth by this element and to maintain such compliance in subsequent years. Policy 9.1.1.1- Level of Service for Recreation and Open Space shall be as follows' Neighborhood parks: .5 acres/1000 residents in the unincorporated area. Policy 9.1.1.2' Policy 9.1.1.3- March 7, 2000 Community parks: 5 acres/1000 residems in the unincorporated area. Regional parks' 5 acres/1000 residems county wide. Accept and achieve the level of service standards as set forth in this and the Capital Improvements Elements, through an equitable and systematic land acquisition and development program. The County will continue to correct and improve upon existing deficiencies through additional land acquisition and development, and through expansion or renovation of existing parks and recreational facilities through projects specified in the Capital Improvement RECREATION Element. ill~ilUlii~llI, ~0 .d.l_:~ /'~ ......... 1_ , · Policy 9.1.1.6: All areas having the Conservation Public Land Use designation will be used solely for Preservation and/or recreation. No residential or commercial development will be permitted other than development typically related to park service and security functions. OBJECTIVE 9.1.2: Through the use of Public funds, girls, contributions, mandatory fees and/or deductions, cooperative agreements, or other means, St. Lucie County will coordinate public and private resources to meet the recreation and open space'needs of its residents .~ Policy 9.1.2.1' The County shall pursue development and enhancement of its recreational programs in the following programs: ao b, Supplement facility needs through interlocal agreements, operational practices, user fees and public/private cooperative efforts. March 7, 2000 RECREATION Policy 9.1.2.2: Policy 9.1.2.3: Policy 9.1.2.4. Policy 9.1.2.5. Policy 9.1.2.6: OBJECTIVE 9.1.3: Policy 9.1.3.1' Policy 9.1.3.2: March 7, 2000 The County shall use monies collected from the recreational impact fee to acquire additional open space and natural reservation areas and to-develop the necessary facilities. The County shall Continue intergovernmental agreements with the St. Lucie County School Board and the City of Ft. Pierce to utilize school ~ recreation facilities. The County will seek through an intergovernmental agreemem with the City of Port St. Lucie to establish the reciprocal use of recreation facilities. The County shall allow, to the extem legally possible, and whenever practical, other governmental agencies, such as the St. Lucie County School Board, to use the St. Lucie County Sports Complex. Maintain a detailed Recreation and Open Space Inventory which indicates the general location of existing and proposed site and facilities as well as functional classification, nature of improvements, usage, size, priority, and other appropriate considerations. St. Lucie County shall provide vehicular and pedestrian access to all public, active, recreation facilities, including barrier-free design features at entrance points to facilities such as buildings used for group assembly, spectator seating areas, and beaches and shores. Acquire and develop easements or rights-of- way as required to provide adequate access for public recreation facilities. Construct accessways which are compatible with the character and needs of the facility, as well as being harmonious with surrounding development patterns. Continue to provide'public access to Atlantic Ocean beaches, and continue to give careful consideration to providing related parking areas and. dune cross-over ~facilities without disturbance to the dune environment, natural habitats, and designated areas of particular concern. RECREATION New Objectives Management of ESL Lands, Coordinate w/Conservation Element Update countyWide facilities master plan. March 7, 2000 RECREATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES The follo~ng ComprehenSive-Plan Goals, Objectives, and ~Policies are mqdifieations of the portions Ofthe Element. ~ adopted 'in 1990, The numbering system is consistent.~.th the 1990 plan ~d, in Order:to :facilitate the pUblic heating process, will not.be modified until this plan is ready for submission to the Depamnent of Community Affairs ~ is.red.ended :. r a ~ :t~on. o..~ ~,.~-,- ~s,,:,,,~[~n~ ts recommended for deletion. The te~ includes changes.recommended by the Comprehensive Plan Study "Group and agreed upon by' s~. These :change~ are.not indicated by any special font or marking. Material indicated by italiCS has be~n rec°mmended by a member of the public. These recommendations :are included verbatim. Each ~11 be notated with its source and staff comments. GO~ 11.1: Objective 11.1.1: Policy 11. I. 1.1: February 29, 2000 CONC~NT WITH,DEMAND THROUGH FISCALLY SO~ CAPITAL I~RO~ME~ PROGRAMMING AND BUDGETING. establishes standards for level~ of se~ice for each ~peof public facili~, and determines what capital ~provemen~ are needed in order to achieve~and maintain standards (as well as to repair or e e .~ . · ' · · e- replace' x~stlng public fatalities). Public facilities means the capital-improvements and systems o.f tach of · e follo~g: arterial and collector roads, mass transit, stormwater management, potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, parks and recreation, lib~es, jails, courthouse facilities, admiffistrative facilities, mosquito control, . ~,~ ,~ ..~.~. ~-,~.~,, St. Lucie County International Ai~ort, public education and pubii~ he~ facilities and shall include land, structures, the initial ~Shings and equipment, design, permitting, and construction costs. Other "capital" costs, such as: motor vehicles and motorized equipmem, computers and office equipment, office furnishings, O and small tools are considered in ~the C untys annual budget, but such items are not "public facilities" fOr the purposes of this Comprehensive Plan, or the issuance of development orders. · .. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Page I of 28 Policy 11.1.1.2: Policy 11.1. !.3: February 29, 2000 The County shall establish standards for levels of service for four categorieS of Public facilities, as follows: Ao Category A Public Facilities ~ means arterial and collector roads, mass transit, stormwater managementi potable water, sanit~ sewer, solid waste, and parks and recreation facilities ~ owned or oPerated by St. Lucie county, all of which are addressed in other elements of this Comprehensive Plan. Category B Public Facilities ~ means libraries, corrections, courthome, administration, mosquito control, and. SL Lueie County International Airpo~ as owned, operated or developed.by St. Lucie.County. Category B Public Facilities are not used for concurrency purposes as provided for in the Concurrency Management System. Ce Category C Public .Facilities [~ means arterial and collector ' · roads, mass transit, stormWater management, potable water, ............................................................... solid waste, and parks and recreation facilities~~ and owned or operated by Federal, State and municipal' govemmenm, independent disfficts, and private organizations, all of which are addresSed in o~er. elements offs Comprehensive Plan. D~ Category D Public Facilities ~ means public health and pUblic education facilities ownedr'Or operated by Federal, State, and municipal governments, independent districts, and. private organizations. 'Category D Public Facilities arc'not used for concurrency purposes as provided for in the Concurrency Management System. The q~fity of public facilities necessary to eliminate existin[ deficiencies and to meet the needs, of fu ' ~ture gro~ shall be determine~ for every type of public facility by the ~'ollowing calculation: Q = (s x D) - E. Where: Q is the quantity of public-facility needed, S is the standard for level of service, · D is the demand, such as the population, and E is the inventory Of'existing facilities. The calculation will be used for existing demand in order to determine Page 2 of 28 CAPIT~ IMPROVEMENTS Policy 11,, 1.1.4: PolicY 1 I. 1.1.5' Policy 11,1.1.6: February 29, 2000 existing deficiencies. The calculation will be used for projected demand in order to determine needs :of future grOwth. The estimates of projected demand will account for demand.that is likely to occur from previOusly issued development ~orders as well as future growth. Public facilities to serve demand from previously issued development.o_'rders shall be included in "D" :(demand)in ~the preceding Calculation. The public facili~ formula will be used for current demand in order to determine existing deficiencies. The public facility formula will :be used for projected demand in order to determine needs of future growth. The estimates of projected demand will account for demand that is likely to occur from previoUsly issued development orders as well as furore growth. Demand that is likely to occur from previously issued development orders will be addressed by the County "r '" . eservmg capacity of public facilities for development orders that were issued by the County prior to the adoPtion of this Comprehensive Plan and that are determined to have vested fights for ~p~Oses of ~e concurrency management system.--T-he auup~u-u,~ The County intcndsto require~ persons with legitimate and substantial vested fights'to continue 'development in good faith in order to reserve capacity.of public facilities. The County will not reserve capacity of public, facilities for' pre~ously issued development orders ~at do not have vested fights for purposes 0f concurrency management, and/or which do not continue development in good faith. There are three circmstances in which the standards for levels of service are not the exclusive determinant of need for a public facility: Ae g:. Calculated needs .for public facilities in coastal Mgh ha~d areas are subject: to all limits and conditions in the Conservation and Coas~ Management and Future Land Use Elements offs Plan (see Policy 11.1.5,.1). Replacement of obsolete or'WOrn out facilities, and repair, remodeling and renovation", will be determined 'by the Board of County Commissioners Upon the recommendation of the County Administrator. C. Public facilities that provide 'levels of service 'in excess of the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Page3 of 28 standards .adopted in this Plan may be constructed or acquired at any time as l°ng as 1) and 2) me-met and ~ one of the conditions 3) through 6) are met: 1) the facility does not make financially~infeasi.ble any public facility of the same type that is needed to .achieve or maintain the ~standards for levels of service adopted in this Plan, 2¸) the facility does not contradict, limit or alter the achievement of the overall gOals, objectives and pOlicies of this Plan, ~ 3) the excess capacity is an integral part of a capital improvement that is needed to .achieve or maintain standards for levels of service, . . 4) the excess capacity provides economies of se,ale making it less expensive than a comparable amount of capacity if acquired at a later date, 5) the asset acquired i~:land that is environmentally sensitive, or designated by the County as necessary for conservation, recreation or protection ofhigh hazard.coas~ areas, Policy 11.1.1.7: Policy 11.1.1.8: Any public facility that is determined to be needed as a result of arty-eft the ~ factors listed in Policy 1 I. 1.1.6 :shall be included inthe regular O' Element. All capital improvements pr ~j~ts for such pUblic facilities shall be approved in the same manner as the projects that are identified acc0rding to the .public ~faci!ity formula described in Policy ! 1.I. 1.3. will take into consideration the projected growth patterns. :~ idcnfificdln "- - ~ "'~,~:' ~,,'~y ....... ' ......... ' ..... '-': ...... : - -" - ~ - applicable, · pub a o. tttzua~-pupu~atzuz~-pzuj~ot, tzuzi~; ~ere . lie facility improvements ~11 be coordinated with the capital :facility plans of any other governmental entity providing public facilities ~~n St. Lucie County. " Febmary 29, 2000 Page 4 of 28 ' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Policy 1 I. 1.1.9: .Policy 11.1.1.10: All public facility improvements that are based on achieving and maintai~ning a standard: for levels of service adopted in this Comprehensive Plan are included in the financially'feasible Schedule of Capital Improvements contained in ~this Capital Improvements Element. The relative priorities among wpes of public facilities (i,.e., roads, drainage, aviation, etc.)are .establiShed by adjusting the smdards for levels of service and the available revenues until ~the resulting public facilities needs became financially feasible. Legal restrictions on the use of many revenue sources limit the extent to which types of:facilities may be prioritized because.they do not compete for the same revenues. During each annual prioritizatiOn process, no ~her pfioritization among, types of public ~ in the Schedule of Capital improvements are financi~ly feasible, programmed for improvement, and will be completed according to the Schedule. Each ye~, however, priofitization among types, of facilities is redetermined by reaffirming or revising s for level of service within the constraints of available restricted revenues.. The following public facility improvements within a facility type are to be considered in ~e following order of priority, as determined by the Board of County COmmissioners: A. Replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities, including 'repair, remodeling and renovation of facilities that contribute to achieving and/or maintaining levels of service. Be New facilities that reduce or eliminate exisfmg deficiencies in levels of service. February 29, 2000 Ce¸ De New public facilities, and improvements m .existing public facilities, that elimi~.~te public hazards not otherwise el. jminated by improvements pfioriti~ according m Subsections a or b, above. New or expanded fa ' fl~ties-that provide, the adopted levels of semite for new development and redevelopment during the next five fiscal y~, as updated by ~e annual review offs Capital Improvements Element. St.~'Lucie County may acquire, land or right-Of-way :in advance ofthe ne~ to develop a facility for new development. The location of facilities constructed p~suant to this Subsection shall conform to the Furore Land Use Element, and specific project locations shall serve projected growth areas within the allowable land use categories, Page 5 of 28 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Improvements to existing facilities, and new facilities that significantly reduce the operating cost of achieving and/or maintaining levels of service. New facilities that exceed the adopted levels of service for new gro~h during the next five fiscal years by either: 1) providing.excess public facility capacity that may be needed by future growth beyond the next five fiscal years, or Policy 11.I'.1.11: Policy 11.1.1.12: Febmary 29, 2000 2) providing higher quality pUblic facilities than are contemplated in the County's normal design criteria for such facilities. G~ Facilities not described in Subsections A through E, above, but Which the County is.obligated to. complete, provided that such obligation is evidenced by a written agreement the County executed prior to JUly 3 l, 1990. H· All facilities scheduled for construction or improvement irt accordance with this Policy shall be evaluated to identify any plans of State agencies or the South Florida Water Management District that affect, or'will be affect~ by, the propos~ capital improvement. Project evaluation may also involve additional criteria that are unique to each type of public, faeili.ty, as described in.other elements of this Comprehensive Plan. In the'eVent ~at the planned capacity of public facilities is insufficient to serve all applicants for develoPment orders, the Board of County Commissioners will schedule capital improvements to serve developments inthe following order ofpriority: 'A. B. C. previously approved orders permi~g new development, new orders permitting redevelopmem, and new orders .permitting new ~developments. ~ -- The standards for levels of service for Category A Public Facilities, County Roads (arterial and collector), shall .be as indicated below on the basis of peak hour, peak season traffic volume: Page 6 of 28 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS m. Level of Service "E" on the following rOads or segments of roads through the end of the fiscal year (FY) indicated and Level of Service "D" or better thereafter:. g. On all other roads for which the County has jurisdictional, maintenance or operational responsibility, St. Lucie County will adopt the following peak season, peak hour levels of service: Replace with new table by Dennis February 29, 2000 Page 7 of 28 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Policy I 1.1.1.13: Policy 11.1..1.14: Policy 11.1.1.15: February 29, 2000 Level of Service "C~ peak hour peak season" on all other County arterial and collector roads. When any. County arterial or collector road or segment of such a road is determined to be operating one level of service below its adopted standard, the County shall exercise one of the following .optior~s' Ac Enter into a contract that will result in the addition of capacity to the facility within six months of the determination that 'the facility is operating beloW its level of service standard, and delay issuance of development orders until the contract has been executed; g¸o Enter into an'enforceable development agreement that specifies that new development will provide for the upgraded facility; Co ~end the plan to lower the. level of service at the next oppommity; or · . Not issue any development permits in the impacted area. The p~ose of Providing for the temporary operation below.~e adOpted level of service is to provide a reasonable period of time to restore:the level of service through appropriate improvements to roads'that are forecast to operate, at the adopted level of service, but Which may unexpectedly operate at a lower.level of service. All development orders issued pursuant to this policy shall be conditioned on the attainment .of the adopted .level of service. However, this Policy Shall nOt impair the County's fight to refuse to issue a development order pursuant to this policy if the Bo~d of County Commissioners determines that the resultant lower level of se~iee caused by the proposed development order would constitute a threat to public health or safety. The.standards for levels of service for Category A Public Facilities, Mass Transit, shall be as follows: No mass ~it semite ~ ~ ................ ........ ~ When mass transit service becOmes feasible and prior to its becoming available in the County, the level of service will be set by plan amendment. ... The standards for levels of service~' for Category A Public. Facilities, CounW.Stormwater'Management Systems and other major stormwater CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Page 8 of 28 Policy 11. I. 1.l 6: Policy 11.1.1.17: Policy 11.'1.1.18: Policy 11.1.1.19: conveyance systems, shall be the 10 year/1 day storm event. When the level of service standard is established for drainage subsequent to the completion of the County-wide Stormwater Master Plan (as indicated in Policy 6C. 1.1.1-), the LOS standard shall include performance standards for water quality and. flood control. Local hnd state regulations specifying stormwater quality standards shall be incorporated by reference as part 'of the drainage LOS standard to measure performance of systems which are designed to remove pollutants from nm-off. Regulations specifying ambient water quality standards shall be referenced to protect .and prevent fin'ther degradation of surface and groundwater by mn-off from stormwater facilities. The .standard for level :of service.for Catego'ry A Public Facilities, County ~ :Water Systems, shall be 88 gallons per capita per day. The level of service standard for those areas of the unincorporated County served by sanitary sewer systems oWned by Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority shall be 130 gallons per capita per day. The standards for level of s~rvice for Category A Public Facilities, County Solid Waste, shall be as follows:'- ' 8.77 ponds of solid waste per capita County-wide per day at the 'landfill. Two years of permitted landfill disposal capacity at ~ present fill rates. Eight years of landfill mw, land capacity at ~'Frese~ fill rotes. .. The rstandard~ for level of service-for Category A Public Facilities, County parks and Recreation, shall be as follows: Regional/metropolitan = 5 acres per 1,000 population County-wide. -. · · Be Community ..park lind = 5. acres per 1,000 population in the unincorporated area. February 29, 2000 Page '9 of 28 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Policy 11.1.1.20: Policy 11. I. 1.21' Policy 11. I. 1,22: Policy 11.1.1.23- policy 11.1.1.24: Policy 11.1.1.25: Policy I 1.1,1.26: Policy 11. I. 1.27: February 29, 2000 D. Recreation facilities (-i.e., buildings and improvements) are included in the cost of park land. The standards for community parks will be applied in increments of 10 The standards for level of service for Category B Public Facilities, Libraries, shall be as follows: .525 square feet of library per capita; and, 1.45 books per capita. The standards.for level of service for ~Category B Public Facilities, Corrections, shall be as follows: 0.00485 beds.per capita. The standard for level' of service for Category B Public Facilities, CoUrthouse, shall be as follows: .839 squ~e feet per capita The standard for level of service for Category B Public Facilities, AdministratiVe and .Maintenance, shall be as follows: 1.253 square feet per capita ~e standard for level of.service for Category B Public Facilities, MOsquito Control, shall be as follows: A specific level .of service has not been determined, but specific capital improvements have been included within'the, capital needs listing ~ order that the listing be comprehensive. A specific standard for level of Se~ce for Category B Public FaCilities, Airport, has not been determined.'/The capital improvement projects included wi~n the capital facilities needs listing are shown in order that the listing be comprehensive. All airport related: capital improvement needs listed are as identified Mthin the aviation poffions of this plan. A specific .standard for level of service for Category B Public Facilities, Port of Ft. Pierce, has not been determined. The capital imProvement projects included ~thin the capital facilities needs listing ~ ~ and are shown in Order that the listing be comprehensive.--A~ CAPIT~ IMPROVEMENTS Page 10 of 28 Policy 11.1.1.28: Aa p~ t' UI UiU dUUptlUii UI i~LliLl UU V ~iU~iiiUiit- IU~LII(~.L~UIi~ VY.iilbii ~ii({il by:August-I,-1990;~h'ie ~ County shall ~ reqUire new develOpment to meet level of service standards for on-site improvements, including local streets, water and sewer connection lines, stormwater management hcilities, and open sPace. .Policy I 1..1.1.29: The standards for. Peak season, peak hour level of service for Category C Public Facilities, Federal and State Roads, shall be as follows: A. In coordination with FDOT, the following facilities shall be classified as' backlogged facilities and shall increase no more than five (5)percent in peak season, p~ hour traffic volume through the end of the fiscal year (FY) indicated fOr improvement, and then be maintained at level of service "D" p~ season, peak hour or better thereafter: ............... ~ ~~.. A · ~ ~ ., .. .. ., g. Level of Service "C" peak' season, peak hour for limited access facilities in rural areas. February 29, 2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Page 11 of 28 C. Leve ' " " .. I of Serv,ce D peak season, peak hour for all other rural and urban Federal and State arterial and collector roads. Note: North US I from Orange to N. AiA widening no longer needed based on 2.020, 25h and 7t" are alternates. a.L ......... J 1__. T~.z, 1~_" .... TT--:I:.~!__ A---1-...---',L__--1---11 1-_ I /~/~ ----II ...... J__. ~..,,'4Jili~Ji ~ilUiibl V U :l- LC{ii i~liil~iikiiiiUl/[. -L-Il 1 .... ~_{1 ..... ~iiCLii UU, CL~ 'lUiiU W ~ February L2'9, 2000 Page 12 of 28 CAPITAL. IMPROVEMENTS l ~,vvv pupa z v,vvv pup,7~~ Objective 11.1.2. Policy 11.1.2.1: Febmary 29, 2000 FINANCIAL FEASIB~~Y Provide needed public facilities that 'are within, the.ability of the County to fund the facilities from County revenue, development's proportionate share contributions and grants or gifts from other sources. The estimated costs of all needed capital improvements shall not exceed conservative estimates of revenues from sources that are. available to the County pursuant to or not precluded by current statutes, and which have not been rejected by referendum, if a referendum is required to enact a Page 13 of 28 CAPIT~ IMPROVEMENTS Policy 11.1.2,2: Policy 11,1..2.3: Policy 11.1.2.4: February 2.9, 2000 source of revenue. Existing development shall pay for some or all of the capital improvements that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencieS, some or all of the replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities, and may pay a portion .of the cost of capital improvements needed bY fumt~ development :and they may t~e .the form of user fees, special assessments ~d taxes. The 'COunty ~11 allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing, and future residents so that current residents will not subsidize an urban sprawl pattern of new development. Future development Future develOpment shall pay for 100% of the capital improvements .needed-to address the impact of such development. Future development's proportion of the cost of capital improvements needed to address the impact'of such development shall be determined, in part, by th. County s impact fee-ordinances and supporting studies, which shall.include credits for other payments by future development. Impact fees, enterprise fund user charges, connection fees, and other user fees paid by new development shall be reviewed every two years to assure that provision of capital improvements needed to address the impact of future development. will not increase ad valorem tax rotes. Upon completion of construction, "futt~e" pr sent. development, and shall .~ development becomes" e " ~ eonffibute to paying the c6sts of th6 replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities as described in subsectioh'B below. Future d velopmem s paymenm may take the form of, but are not limited to, voluntary contributions for the benefit of any public facility, impact fees, capacity fees, dedications of land, provision of public facilities, and fit~e paymen~ of user fees, speei~ assessments and taxes. Future development shall not pay impact fees for the portion of any e~'pital improvements that reduces or eliminates existing deficiencies. B. Existing development.. : Existing development shall pay for the facility improvements that reduce or eliminate'existing deficiencies, and some or all of the replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities. Existing development's payments 'hmy take the form of user fees, special assessments, and taxes. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Page 14 of 28 Policy I 1.1.2.5 :' Both. eXisting and future development may have part of their costs paid by grants, entitlements or provision of public facilities from other levels.of government and independent districts. Policy 11.1.2.6: Capital improvemen~ may be financed, and debt shall be managed as follows: ' go Public facilities financed by. County enterprise funds (i.e., aUtomated services, potable water, sanitary sewer and solid waste) shall be financed by: 1) Debt to be repaid by user fees and charges for enterprise services, or Current assets (i.e.: reserves, surpluses and current revenue), or · . 3). A combination of debt and current assets.. g. The financing of the capi~.~c0st of public facilities with -non-enterprise funds (i.e.,~rOads, stormwater management ~and parks) shall be from current revenue, equity or debt, or a combination of currem revenue, equity.and debt, whichever may be most cost effective and Cofisistent ~th prudent asset and liability ~management, given the useful life of the assets to be financed and efficient'use of ~e County's debt capacity. C. All development orders issued by the County which require public facilities that will be financed by debt shall be conditioned on the issuance ofthe debt, or the substitution of a comparable amount of non-debt revenues. ~ Poliey 11.1..2.7: The'Cowry shall not provide a public facility, nor shall it aecelSt the provision of a public facility by others, if the County is unable to pay for the subsequent annual operating and maintenance costs of the facility. February 29, 2000 Page 15 of 28 CAP ITAL IMPRO VEMENTS Policy 11~ 1,2.1'0: In the event that.sources of revenue listed under the heading "Costs and Revenues by TYpe of Public FaciliW" of this Element require voter approval in .a local referendum that has not been held, ora referendum is Alternatively, this Comprehensive Plan may be amended to adjust for the lack of revenues, in any of the following waYs: Increase the use of other sources of revenue. Reduce the standard for levels of service for one or more public facilities. Policy 11. I..2,11: ge Decrease the cost, and therefore the quality, of some types of public facilities while retaining the quantity of the facilities that is inherent in the stand~d for levels of service. e A combination of the above'alternatives. All development orders issued by the County WMch require Category A public facilities that will be financed by sources of revenue which require. voter approval in a local referendum that is. yet to be held shall be conditioned .on the referendum being, approved, or the substitution of other sources of revenue to ensure that facilities are provided concurrent with need. Policy 11.1,2. i 2: Reeogni~ng that furore ~ding oppommities may be less ~ or greater · ~ orig~ally anticipated and that overall the County will operate withi, n a e~nstmined financial setting, the fi~t priority for allocation of monies for eapi~ p~oses is for the maintenance of the County~ 's present facilities so as to ensure proper protection of ~e investments in such facilities. Objective 11.1.3: PRO.SION OF NEEDED iMPRoVEMENTS · . Within the County's financial capability, provide needed capital improvements for repair or replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities, eliminating existing deficiencies, and meeting the needs of futUre development and redevelopment caused by previously issued and new development orders. February 29, 2000 Page 16 of 28 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Policy 11.1.3.1: The .County shall provide,'or arrange.for others to provide, the public facilities listed in the Schedule °f i~apiml Improvements of this Capital Improvements Element. Policy 11.1.3.2: Pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes, the Schedule of Capital Improvements may be amended two times during ariy calendar year, and as allowed for emergencies, developments of regional impact, and certain small scale development activities. gtllU ~UII%/IU~~ 111 LII~ m~.~L~It~LI IIII~IU V UIIIUII~' I.~IUIIIUII[J · Policy 11.1.3.4: . . Pursuant to Section 163'3177, Florida Statutes, the Schedule of Capital Improvements may be adjusted by....ordinance not deemed to be an amen~ent to ~¢ ComprehensiVe Plan for corrections, updates, and modifications concerning costs; revenue sources; acceptance of facilities pu~uant to dedications which are C°nsistent with the plan; or the date of construction of any facility enumerated in the Schedule of Capi~l Improvements. Policy 11.1.3.5: The County shall Mopt a capital budget as part of the annual budgeting process that includes all the capital improvements projects listed in the Schedule .of Capital Improvemen~ .for expenditure during the appropriate fiscal year, ~eept' ~at the County may omit from its annual budget any capital improvements for which a binding agreement has been executed with anOther party to provide the same project in the same fiscal year. The County may ~so include in the capital~ appropriations of its annual budget additional public.faCility projec .~ that confOrm to Policy 1 I. l. 1.10.E. Policy 11.1.3.6: The impacts of developmem on pilblic facilities wi~n St. Lueie County are found to occur at the same'time as development authorized by a final development order. The Board defines final development order as a building permit, conditional: me approval, Board'of Adjustment appmva!, or any other development Order which has an immediate and continuing impact upon the i~tmcmre. The County shall determine, prior to. ~e issuance of final development orders, whether or not there is sufficient capacity of Category A and Category C public facilities to meet the standards for levels of service for existing populatiOn and the proposed development concurrent with the proposed development. February 29, 2000 Page 17 of 28 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Policy .I 1.1.3.7: Policy 11.1.3.8: A preliminary'development order is defined as a DRI Development approval, zoning approval, preliminary plat approval, preliminary development plan approval, Plan amendment :approval, preliminary Planned Unit Development approval, or any other development order other than a.final development order and fOr which there are not found to be any impacts of development. - The.standards for levelsof Service of Category A and Category C pUblic facilities shall be applied to' the issuance of development orders .on the fOllowing geographical ~basis: Ae PUblic facilities which serve the entire County shall achieve and maintain the.standard for levels of service on a County-wide basis. No-development order shall:be issued in any part of unincorporated St. Lucie County.if the standard .for levels of service is not achieved and maintained throughout the County for the following public facilities: I) Solid Waste 2) Regional Parks Bm Public facilities which.serve less than the entire County shall achieve and maintain the standard for levels of service wi~n their assigned service areaas defined by the Board of County Co~issiOners. No development Order shall be issued in an impact area ~for the following public facilities: 1) Arterial and C°lle/St6r Roads: In order to ac~eve and maintain :the level of service standards ~ adopted in the ::':' ................ :: ........ -" ............ . .~i'~,~-_a'~_ _ tm.' .... .1-a..' .... ~ ~-~~,~ ,.,-~,~,,,~,.,u' Element, developments shall..address the mitigation of all-potential project impacts on the roadway~ network in their ~c circulation.plans. 2) Stormwater Management Systems: . Drainage Sub-Basin. 3) Potable Water Systems: Treatment Plant Service Area February 29, 2000 Page 18 of 28'" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 4) Sanitary Sewer Systems: Treatment Plant Service Area 5) District Parks and :Recreational Facilities: Planning Area 6) Neighborhood Parks and Recreational Facilities: (a) · Planning Area or applicable area of service for significant impact. (b) Project boundaries, for projects providing neighborhood park(S)'sufficient, at a minimum, to meet project demand. COORD~ATING ,CAPIT~ IMPROVEMENTS WITH LAND DEVELOP~NT Objective 11.1.4: :. Coordinate land use decision's and:available or projected fisCal resources with a schedule of caPital imProvements that maintains adopted level of service standards and meets existing and futUre faCility needs. Policy I1.1.4.1: All Category A public facility capi~ improvements shall :be consistent M~ the goals, objectives and policies of the appropriate elements of this Comprehensive Plan. '-"" '- pOlicy 11,1.4.2: The ,County shall integrate its land use piing and decisions with its plans :fOr pUblic faeiliW capital improvements by using the policies listed in this section of the Capital Improvements Element. The location of, and Improvements. shall.~ maintain adopted staudar' ds for levels of s e?'~" ~me 'for existing and future development ~'a manner and location consistent with ~e,Future Land Use Element of ~s Comprehensive Plan. Individual land use decisiom shall be consistent ~~ the Comprehensive Plan and the ability ofthe County to provide and main · ~min level of service. Policy 11.1.4.3' The COunty shall amend its land development regulations to proVide for a system of review of various.applications for development orders which applications., if granted, would impact the levels of service of Category A and Catego~ C public facilities..' Such system of review shall assure that no final ~development order shall b~ issued which results in a reduction in February 29, 20.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Page 19 of 28 February 29, 2000 the levels of service identified in PoliCies~ 11.1.1.12 through 11.1.1.35. The land deVelopment regulations, shall address the following, at a minimum, in determining whether a development order can be issued. Review of Applications for Final Development Orders. No final development order shall be issued bythe_._C. tv.~oun.~" ~-~---m~ ~--'--my .,~'~; Catego~ A~d Catego~ C public facilities to meet the s~d~ds for levels of semite for ~e existing development.~d for ~e proposed development a~ording m the follo~ng deMlines: 1) Prior to the issuance of a building.permit for the following pub Ii c faci I i ti es: (a) Potable water. .(b) Sanitary sewer. (c) Solid waste. 2) Prior to the issuance.of the-building permit, assurance as to the completion for the following public 'facilities within the next'twelve months must be provided' (a) (b). (c) Arterial and'~eOllector roads. Parks and r~ereation. Storm water management. Review.of Applications for Preliminary Development Orders. The capacity of Category A and Category C public facilities shall be determ~ed fOr prel~inary.developmem orders aCCording to one of the fOllowing: 1) The applicant may request a determination of suCh capacity as part of the review and approval of the preliminary development .order provided that: (a) The determination that such capacity is available shall 'apply only to specific uses, densities, and intenSifies based on information provided by the · ;.~ ~ applicant, and included in the development order, and (b) The determination that such capacity is available CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, Page 20 of 28 February 29, 2000 (c) shall be valid, for development that is completed .within a period: not to exceed two years, or (2) any'period of time acc~eptable to .the County and the applicant, proVided that the period of time is explicitly set forth in a binding development agreement as authorized by Florida Statutes, and ~the applicant provides one or more of the following .assurances, acceptable to the County in form and amount, to guarantee the applicant's pro rata share of the County's financial obligation for public facilities which are constructed by the County for the benefit of~e subject property: [al [bi [dj Ici performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, prepayment of impact fees, prepayment of capacity (i.e., prepayment of capacity connection charges), or formation of a Community Development District pursuant .to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. Whenever an applicant's pro rata share of a public facility is less than the full cost of the facility, the County shall do one of the following: (1) (2) contract with the applicant for th, full cost of the facility, including terms regarding reimbursement of the applicant .for costs in excess of the applicant's pro-rata share, or obtain assurances similar to those in subsection (b)[2] from other sources, or (3') amend this Comprehensive Plan to modify the adopted standard for the level of service so as to reduce the required facility to equal Page 21 of 28 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS February 29, 2000 2) .-3) (d) the applicant's needs. · : Pursuant to a and b, above, no further determination of capacity for the subject property as required by Policy 11.1.3.6 shall be required prior to the expiratiOn of the determinatioh of capacity for the preliminary development order, except that any change in the density, intensity or land use that requires additional public facilities.or capacity is subject to review and approval or denial by the CounW.. The determination of Capacity for the preliminary development order shall be considered a reservation of capacity until the end of the time periods specified in POlicy 11.1.4.3.(B)(1)(b) above, or until the County is notified in writing by the applicant.that the project will not be undertaken during those time periods and that the applicant voluntarily 3~ields the reserved capacity. Public facility capacity that is .determined to be available pursuant to this .subsection shall be reserved on behalf of the preliminary development order in such a manner as to.prevent the overuse or over commitment of the same public facility capacity.. Notwithstanding the procedures outlined in Policy 11.1.4.3.(B)(1), all- approvals at the preliminary development order stage shall include a condition that the final development order con~ng a specific plan for development, including the densities and intensities of development, will not be issued unless public services and facilities eXist or are assured to be/tvailable to meet or exceed the level of service standards concurrent ~th the impacts of development. '~ The applicant may elect to request approval of a preliminary, deVelopment order without a determination of capacity of'Category A and Category C public facilities provided that any such order is issued subject to requirements in the applicable land development .regulation or 'to specific conditions contained in the preliminary development order that: . Final development orders for the subject prOperty CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Page 22 of 28 Policy I I.I.4.4: PolicY 11.1.4.5: February 29, 2000 (b) are subject to a determination of capacity of Category A and Category C public facilities, as required by Policy 11.1.3.6, and No rights to obtain final development orders, nor any other rights to develop thb subject property have been granted or implied by the County's approval of the .preliminary development order without determining.the.capacity of public facilities. (c) Applicants for development orders may offer to provide public facilities at the applicant's own expense in order to ensure Sufficient capacity of Category A and Category C public-facilities, as . determined according to Paragra >hs a and b, above. · . Development orders may be issued subject to the provision of public facilities by the applicant subject · to both 'of the following requirements: (1) The County and the applicant enter into an enfomeable develOpment agreement which shall provide, ata minimm, a schedule for construction of the public facilities and mechanisms for monitoring to insure that the public facilities are completed concurrent Mth~the impacts of the development, or the development will not be allowed to proceed. (2) The public facilities are contained in the Schedule of Capital Improvements of the c0m~rehensive Plan. If public facilities are provided at an applicant's own expense, as allowed in sub- paragraph (c) above, the facility shall not be.provided later than the fiscal year for which that facility was programmed in the schedule of Capital Improvements. Impact fee ordinances shall require. the same standard for the level of semite as is required by Policies 11.1.1.12 through 11.1.1.35. The annual budget shall include in its capital appropriations all projects in the Schedule of Capital Improvements that are planned for expenditure Page 23 of 28 ..... CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS during the next fiscal year. Policy 11.1.4.7: Policy 11.1.4.8: February 29, 2000 .. ~-~ l~U~tL~ Ui X U V ~iXU~ XUX ~~ The Coun~ shall establish. and maintain a Concurrency Implementation and Monitoring SYstem. The System shall co:mist of the following components: A. Annual report on the. capacity and levels of service of public facilities compared to the standards for levels of service adoPted in Policies 11.1.1.12 throtigh!i'..1.1.1.35. This report will function asa Page 24 of 28 C~ITAL IMPROVEMENTS February 29, 2000 Bo C~ D~ public information source, to summarize the actual'capacity of ~public facilities, and forecast the capacity of public facilitieS for each of the five succeeding fiscal Ye~s. The forecast.shall ~ ~ b¢~ based on-the niost~r¢ccntly updated Schedule of Capital plo ~ lllUlim Ill I;ili~ '~iJ. pita:li-:illllJlU V1;711ii;;iiI~-12~lUiilUilt. The'annual report shall also summarize and forecast capficities and levels of service for comparison to. the standards adopted in Policies 11'. 1.1.12 through 11,1.1.3 5, but such portion of the annual report shall be for info~ation purposes only and shall not pertain to the issuance of development orders by the County. Public Facility Capacity ReView. The County shall use the procedures specified in Policy 11.1.4.3, above, to enforce the requirements of.Policies 11.1..3.6'through 11.1.3,8, and to assure that public facilities and services needed to support development are available.'concurrent with the impacts of such developments. A separate record shall be maintained during each fiscal year to' indicate the CumulatiVe impacts of'all development Orders approved during 'the fiscal year- m-date on the capacity of public facilities as set forth in the most recent annual report on capaci.ty and levels ofservice of public facilities. The land development regulations of the County shall provide that applications for development orders that are denied because of insufficient capacity of public facilities may. be,resubmitted after a time period to be specified in the land development regulations. Such 'time period is in lieu of,-and not in addition to, other minimm waiting periods imposed on applications for development orders that are denied for reasons other than lack of capacity of public facilities. Land development regulations shall require that development commence wit~.n a specified time after a development order is issued, or the development order shall expire, subject to reasonable extensions Of time based on criteria included in the regulations. The land development regulations al~b shall .provide for the Courtly to reserve capacity for approved final development-orders for a specified.period of time. Review of Changes in Planned Capacity of Public Facilities. The County shall review each amendment to' this Capital Improvement Element, in particular any changes in standards for levels of service and changes in the Schedule'of CaPital Improvements.., in order to enforce the requirements of Policy 11.1.3.5. Concurrency Implementation Strategies. The County shall' annually Page 25 of 28 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Feb~ 29, 2000 review the concurrency implementation policies that are incorporated in this Capital Improvements Element: (1) Smdards for levels of service are phased to specific fiscal years in order to provide clear, unambiguous standards for issuance of deVelopment orders. (See'Policies 11.1.1.12 through 11.1.1.35.) (2) (3) Standards for .levels of service are applied within appropriate geographical areas of the County. Standards for County-wide public facilities are applied to development orders based on 'levels of service throughout the County. Standards fOr public facilities that serve.less than the entire County are applied to development orders on ~e basis of- levels of service within assigned service, areas. (See Policy 11.1.3.8.) . . Standards for levels of service are applied .according to the timing of the impacts of development on public facilities. Final development orders, which impact public facilities in a matter of months.,' are issued subject to the availability of water, sewer, and-~6'lid Waste facilities prior m the' issuance Of the building permit, and other public facilities (i.e., roads, parks, and drainage) must be available wi~n twelve months of the issuance of the building permit. Preliminary development orders mn be issued subject to public facility capacity, but the capacity determination expires in two years.. As an alternative, the determination of public facility capacity for preliminary developmem orders can be waived with an agreement ?that a capacity determination must be made prior to iss~ce of any final development order for the. subject property. Such a waiver spedfieally precludes the acquisition of righB to a final development order as a result of the issuance of the preliminary development order. (See Policies. 1'1.1.3.6 and 11.1.3'7.) (4) Levels of service.~e:compared to adopted standards, on. an annual basis. Anmial monitoring is used, rather than case-by-case monitOring, for the following reasons: a) annual moffitoring corresponds to annual expenditures for O ' capital improvements during the C .unty s fiscal year; b) annual monitoring covers seasonal variations in levels of service; and c).case-by-case monitoring would require CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Page 26 of 28 (5) applicants, for development orders or the County to conduct coStly, time-consuming research which would often be partiallY redundant:Of prior research, or invOlve disparate methodologies and produce inconsistent results. Public faciliW capital improvements ~re prioritized among competing applications for the same amount of facility capacity according to the criteria in Policy 11.1.1.10. If any applications have to be deferred to a future fiscal year because ~of insufficient capacity of public facilities during the current fiscal year, the applications to be deferred will be selected on the basis of rational criteria ~ determined by the Board of County Commissioners. -.1..1 Objective 11-1.5:: Policy 11.1.5,1- February.· 29, 2000 COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS The County shall protect the Coastline and avoid loss of life and property in coastal areas by-minimizing !and development and public facilities in coastal high hazard areas. -- ...: .: Publicly funded infr~tmcture shall not be constructed within the Coastal High Hazard Area unless the expenditure is for: : . A, Restoration 'or enhancement of natural resources or public access; g, Land application of treated effluent disposal (irrigation) on public and private open spaces; C, Flood-proofing water and sanita~ sewerage facilities; CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Page 27 of 28 Eo Fe Gl The development or imprOvement of a facility which will serve-a crucial need by ameliorating the evacUation time of residentS of the County; Reconstruction of seawalls that are essential to' the protection of existing public facilities or infrastructure; The retrofitting of stormwater management facilities for water quality enhancement of Stormwater runoff; or Port facilities. Febmary 29, 2000 Page 28 of 28 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS N-OTICE-OF ST. LUCIE COU'NTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS The St. Lucie 'Co.u.nty Local Planning Agency proposes .to review the Capital lmprovem.ent Element of the St. LuCie County Comprehensive Plan. A PUBLIC HEARING on thiS., matter will be held before the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency on T'hursday, March 16, 20.00 at 7:00 P.M.-or as soon thereafter as possible, in Room 10.1, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL. Matters affecting your personal and property rights maybe heard and .acted-upon. Ail interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. 'Written comments 'received in. advance of the public hearing, will also be heard. The purpose of this public hearing is to amend the St. Lucie County ComPrehensive Plan. Copies of the proposed element, is avail'able for-review in the office of the S~ ~ Co. mmunity Development. Director, t. LUcie County Admini'stration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, ~FL, during., regular business hours. Amendments to the. proposed .elements may be~made at the .publiC.hearing. An'y person with a disability .requiring .accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St.. Lucie ~County Community Services Manager at 561/462-1777 or TDD 56.1.462-1428 at'least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting, 'If any person decides to appeal a-ny. decision made with .respect to any matter considered at the meetings or hearings of' any board, committees, co.mmissiOns, agency, council or advisory grou.p, that person will need .a record of 'the proceedings .and that' f°r such purposes may need 'to ensure' that a verbatim record-of the proceedings is made, 'which record should include the testimony and' evidence upon which t:he appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, . individuals testifying during a hearing Will be sworn in. Any. party to the proceeding .will b~ granted an oppo~-unity to. crOss-examine· any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. - This notice dated and executed this 29th. day of February 20.00. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/Stefan Matthes, Chairman PUBLISH DATE: March 6, 2000 cOMPREHENSIVE PLAN The St. Lucie C.ounty Local Planning Agency review the Capital Improvement Element of County Comprehensive Plan, PUBLIC 'HEARING on this matter will be St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency March 16., 2000 at 7:00 P.M. or as soon · sible, in Room 101, St. Lucie .County Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, .Ft. Pierce, i affecting your personal and property rights and acted upon. Ail interested persons attend and be heard, written comments advance of. the public hearing will' also be he The purpose of this 'public hearing is to Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. · Copies of 'the proposed element is.availabl the office of the. Community Lucie County Administration' Building, Avenue, ~Ft. Pi:erce, FL, dur. ing 'regular Amendments to the proposed elements: the public ~hearing. Any person with a disability requiring attend this meeting should' contact the Community Services Manager. at 561i46 561.462-1428 at least forty-eight (48)~ .,.:.;~:,~ meeting. ~' if any person decides to appeal any respect t° any matter considered at the ings of any board, committees, commis councilor advisory group, that person will' the proceedings and that, for such ensure that a verbatim record, of the' which record should include the upon .which the appeal, iS-'t0 be based, of any party tO the proceeding, a hearing will' be sWorn in. Any patty'to th be' granted'an opportunity · testifying' during a .hearing upon requestl ~ tr [ :j r. a This notice dated and executed this 6th d Y .. 2000. ' r' : ~ ~ LOCAL PLA ST.' LUCIE ISl Stefan M PUBLISH DATE: to' Lucie the ~ursday, r.:as pos- stration Matters heard nVited to eiVed in ~d the-St. in s made at. tO County or TDD or to the · or hear of AGENCY FLORID~ Chairman